The Founders did not Grant the Federal Judiciary the Power to Interpret the Constitution

The Price of Liberty ^ | 03/29/2004 | Robert Greenslade

[Cold Heat]

I would say that it would depend on a court ruling as to what infringement is.

Something that still has not been done to the satisfaction of 2nd ammendment supporters. Or me.

Unfortunately California has it's own ideas about infringement and of commerce, which it can regulate.

[Who is John Galt?]

I've read all of them. Have you?

Yes. And I believe they mean - precisely - what they say. Nothing more, and nothing less.

By your non-answer, it is apparent that you can't, or won't, be honest enough to give us a plain yes or no.

As I have stated previously, tp, I believe we agree on more issues than we disagree. Allow me to suggest, however, that your attempts to 'put words in my mouth' that I have not written hardly qualifies you to dispute my 'honesty'...

Once again:

Does the Constitution mean what it says - or does it mean something else?

Tell us, my friend: when the Constitution says "Congress," does it actually mean "Congress" - or does it mean 'State legislatures?'

;>)

[Non-Sequitur]

"Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule."

If not them, then who?

[Cold Heat]

Help me out a sec here.

I have forgotten the term used to define a judge that sees the words as written. (Like Thomas)

I can't seem to find it.

[mrsmith]

"Indeed, the often-heard generalization that ‘the 14th makes the Bill of Rights binding on the states’ is patently absurd... "

While I commend your apparent regard for the neglected Ninth and Tenth Amendments- which it would indeed be logically absurd to apply to the states- the statement is 80% correct.

The debate over the amendment centered around the Barron ruling and it was even expressly stated that it's purpose was to apply the first eight amendments to the states.

80% accuracy is darn accurate for generalizations about the Constitution these days!

[Cold Heat]

"Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule."

I would think it is a matter of interpretation.:-)

Seriously, interpretations must be make but they should be regarding the application and not the meaning of the law or constitutional statement.

If those need interpretation, there is plenty that go to the heart of the writer.

Anything more to me is judicial activism and constitution writing via judicial fiat.

These are my opinions about it.

How say you?

[Cold Heat]

make=made......................taking a spelling break.

[harrowup]

"No State shall make or enforce any law ..., without due process of law

The operative words being clear that the state in regard to assault weapons made it illegal to own same, with due process.

We still have the "right" to hold and bear arms, but the state has insisted we be licensed to do so and has said no license is available for certain types of weapons. It is not ever going to be possible to change this view and the constant debate is debilitating to the public psyche. That doesn't stop you from owning an assault weapon any more than stolen art; your investment is simply restricted to the black market. Become a museum and put an armed Cobra on the front lawn and have at it.

[tpaine]

Are the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," "due process of law," and "the equal protection of the laws," defined by the Constitution - or by some 'unwritten law?'
-galt-


_____________________________________


Those are all common english words, well defined for hundreds of years.

-- They, and the words of our constitution, mean what they say.


Now go play your strange word games with some of the other 'states rights' FReekers around here.

[Who is John Galt?]

If not them, then who?

Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison both suggested that the parties to the compact possessed the right, in the last resort, to determine whether or not the federal government had complied with the specific, written terms of the Constitution - not vice versa...

;>)

[Gianni]

The Judicial arm, like the Executive and Legislative, was established for the people of the United State of America, not for the States that compromise it.

Freudian typo?

[tpaine]

harrowup wrote:

"No State shall make or enforce any law ..., without due process of law."


The operative words being clear that the state in regard to assault weapons made it illegal to own same, with due process.

_______________________________________


In a discussion of the scope of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court stated:

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
 
    "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints...

[Who is John Galt?]

...it was even expressly stated that it's purpose was to apply the first eight amendments to the states.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 14th Amendment nowhere states that a specific, written restriction on "Congress" is somehow 'transmogrified' into a restriction on State legislatures. A restriction on "Congress" would appear to be just that: a restriction on "Congress"...

80% accuracy is darn accurate for generalizations about the Constitution these days!

That may be true. I continue to hope that the Constitution might one day be considered to mean just what it says...

;>)

[harrowup]

The problem being that his interpretation is invalid?

He was cherry picking before there were any used ones on the market.

Honestly, tp, how can you stand reading all that gobbleygook?

[mrsmith]

The conceit of this essay is beside the point.
The contract included a correcting mechanism anyway.

The state legislatures were given their own representatives with power to install judges who reflect their interests, and to remove judges who abuse the contract.
(Oh wait a minute, that was taken away from the states... maybe that constitutional unbalancing is the real cause of these power mad judges.)

[Who is John Galt?]

They, and the words of our constitution, mean what they say.

So, when the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law," it means "Congress shall make no law?" Not 'State legislatures shall make no law?'

Thanks - I just wanted to clarify a simple point.

;>)

Now go play your strange word games with some of the other 'states rights' FReekers around here.

I'm sorry you've taken offense - such was not my intent. Where the Constitution says "Congress," I would suggest that it means "Congress" - nothing more, nothing less. And where Mr. Madison said "in the last resort," I would suggest that he meant just that.

If you believe there is a higher law than the Constitution (God's law, or 'common law,' or your own personal beliefs) I would not dispute your right to so believe. But do not ever tell me that the people of the States ratified anything other than a written contract. That is simple, documented, historical truth - not "strange word games," no matter what you may suggest...

;>)

[tpaine]

A restriction on "Congress" would appear to be just that: a restriction on "Congress"...

I continue to hope that the Constitution might one day be considered to mean just what it says...

93 -galt-


_____________________________________


Nice little word game.

Can we ever hope that you might one day consider to say just what it is you mean about restrictions on congress?

Is our 2nd amendment only a restriction on Congress, in your mind?

[tpaine]

Used what on the market?

[Who is John Galt?]

Is our 2nd amendment only a restriction on Congress, in your mind?

Perhaps you should read the amendment in question - in fact, it nowhere mentions "Congress"...

;>)

[mrsmith]

Well, let's all keep working for 100%.

Nobody but congress passes laws, and in a state nobody but legislature passes laws. It's much less of a stretch to equate them than to try to differentiate them.
I've never seen any contemporary indication that "congress" is in there for more than emphasis so as an "originalist" I'm happy with them applying it to the states.

It's just their arbitrary interpretation of the First- and of everything else- that earns them my contempt.