I say we make an amendment to abolish the supreme court. It can't be any worse than what we have had in the past.
Posted on 09/15/2005 7:12:34 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
FEINGOLD: Let's go to something else then. I'd like to hear your views about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This is an amendment where there's a real shortage of jurisprudence.
You mentioned the Third Amendment where there's even less jurisprudence, but the Second Amendment's close. So I think you can maybe help us understand your approach to interpreting the Constitution by saying a bit about it.
The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
FEINGOLD: The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.
In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.
The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.
So what is your view of the Second Amendment? Do you support one of the other views of the views of what was intended by that amendment?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Roberts will be confirmed.
I say we make an amendment to abolish the supreme court. It can't be any worse than what we have had in the past.
Great first post. Welcome to Freerepublic. Wish we had more like you.
What a lying sack of Sh*t he is. The Court in Miller did no such thing. The decision went off on the Court's arguably bogus, whole cloth characterization of sawed off shotguns as not a part of the militia's armamentaria and therefore beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Moreover, the defendant was not represented in the matter when it was being "argued" before the Court. Just a minor due process problem, dontcha know. Which makes it somewhat odd that the Court saw fit to rule on the matter at all. The main point is, Finegold is a piece of heavy left scum who will say anything, anything at all.
And Feinswine used to carry concealed (& probably still does), and Rosie O'Donnel has (or, at least, HAD) an armed body guard.
That means absolutely NOTHING, and MAY mean nothing more than, these type of "elites" think that it is O.K. for THEM to be armed, but not the "average" citizen out on the "street".
Unless they respect, support, and defend our rights, as well as theirs, they are hypocrites and scumbags that should NOT be in any office of power or importance.
Thank you. It's an honor to be here.
That is a flat out lie. There is no such indication whatsoever in the Miller decision.
The Court merely said that no evidence had been presented to show that the firearm in question had any utility as a militia weapon. The clear implication is that had that evidence been shown to the Court Miller's possession of the short barrel shotgun would have been protected by the amendment.
That evidence was abundantly available, but Miller had died before the case was heard and his lawyer didn't show up in court to submit any evidence at all. Any unbiased reader of Miller will come away with the impression that the court would have ruled differently if that evidence had been presented.
Since Miller many lower courts have knowingly, brazenly misinterpreted the decision, and in practically every case those courts used that misinterpretation to deny Americans their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Years ago I read an 1863 Harpers article that stated "The ???? regiment was well-regulated, being armed with the Sharps breechloading rifle . . .". In that context I took "well regulated" to mean "well equipped", which would also make sense.
American English is a dynamic language and meanings/usage change over the years. Many examples exist. I read an 1880s account of an Indian fight where "Mr. X showed much bravery by discovering himself to the Indians in order to draw their fire." In those days "discover" meant "uncover", so Mr. X evidently exposed himself to draw enemy fire.
Back in the 30s, there was a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movie called "The Gay Divorcee". Back then "gay" meant carefree. You'd get a different interpretation by today's youth.
I always preach that the Second Amendment, in effect, said "A well-equipped body of men between the ages of 18 and 40 . . .". I get some stunned looks.
It would perhaps be to much to ask that Roberts be more knowledgeable here. He has only been a judge for about two years, I think. Its possible he has never had a case involving the Second Amendment.
On the other hand, there are only ten articles in the Bill of Rights. One might think that he would have some rather informed opinions if he thought that one of them had been seriously infringed for more than seventy years.
Roberts' statement about Miller strikes me as erroneous. If there had been a "collective rights" issue then one might have thought that the Supreme Court would have refused cert on the basis that Miller had no standing to bring the case.
From US vs. Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
It appears to me that there is no "collective rights" issue at all. "Every male capable physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" might be termed a "collective" but each such individual was expected to arm himself and the Second Amendment prohibited infringement or his right to do so.
Is this just something he says to mollify hunters in Wisconsin?
Feingold can and will say anything. Doesn't mean he'd vote that way.
I've seen him look straight into the camera during a campaign debate and say exactly the opposite of what his actual vote in the Senate said. His whole *maverick* act is a charade, but he pulls it off, over and over again. Extremely frustrating because in reality, he's probably the most radical liberal in the Senate (although even his *big ideas* aren't as grand on the socialism scale as Hitlery's).
Did not know that....
Personally, I fail to see how some measures, such as keeping WMDs out of the hands of ordinary citizens, cannot be a violation of the second amendment from this interpretation, but still a *good thing*. And there are certain measures, such as registration and mandated safety training, that I can see as not violating the 2nd amendment in any way, so long as the right to own a gun is not violated....
Feingold is only sounding pro-gun because he knows that to be openly anti-gun kills the Dems at the ballot box. He's just like 99 percent of the Democrats, who would trash the Second Amendment in a heartbeat. Remember, they had majorities in the House and Senate in 1934 and in 1968. Look what we got, two very bad laws that directly contradict the Second Amendment.
However, aren't these her words?
(BTW: I wish President Bush would have said them tonight as he was calling for increased use of federal military troops to police civilians.)
========================
(From the article body, this thread.)
The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right.Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns.
And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
They forget the power structure as it applies. Individual, Family, Town, County, State and then way down on the bottom is supposed to be the Federal Government made up of representatives of the people from their perspective states and regions within that state.
You are exactly right. The right to keep and bear Arms comes from God.
When your life is in danger, you don't want to rely on a police force that is stretched way too thin. And the last thing you want to hear when you call 9-1-1 is, "All our operators are busy right now...."That might just be the last thing you ever hear.
Exactly what the antigun leftist swine were hoping for.
Roberts had to walk a fine line in the hearings between committing himself to a position on issues that may come before the court and not lying to his inquisitors. I would like to have seen a more ardent originalist nominated, but I think Roberts acquitted himself very well during the hearings.
I'd have to read the other comments Rogers made and look at Miller again, before I'd conclude on the remark. It's a mistake though to conclude "militia" is a collective that holds right. It's the individuals that hold the right and they make up militia.
A simple rephrase illustrates the point.
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.
The people retain the right, not the collective "electorate". The people simply make up the electorate.
Actually, even that's not right. ... Is there any other case where the government, after "winning", has offered a plea-bargain for time served?
I don't see the disagreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.