Replies

No...it doesn't depend on my opinion or on what anyone's opinion means. The operative phrase here is "the press". The constitution cannot be referring to a printing press as inanimate object cannot have rights. The are referring to people but they didn't say freedom of people to distribute their speech as long as it's printed on a printing press. There are many historical references to the term and what it meant in historical context, and further one needs to bit dense not to understand what it means in the first place. A reasonable person could not read

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and come to the conclusion that it was referring to printing presses. It refers to people and freedom of speech. The method of speech is not mentioned.

This does not require interpretation by the court. It means exactly what it says, otherwise you have a judiciary that can change the constitution at will. If the constitution can be changed by judicial fiat then in effect we do not have a constitution and without a constitution the judiciary has no legitimate authority.

-- It means exactly what it says, otherwise you have a judiciary that can change the constitution at will. --

The rebuttal to that is easy. We have a form of government where the judiciary can change the constitution at will. Not by literally changing the words in the constitution, but by changing what they mean and how they will be applied to the public, by force of violence up to death, if that is what it takes.

The legitimacy of the judiciary is measured by its ability to obtain coercive power from the other branches. If Congress wants a certain species of guns removed from civilian ownership, and the executive and courts agree, then they'll kill, if that's what it takes to maintain their power. "Legitimacy" is just another word for superior force.

First, you think and write well. We have no disagreement on most points

The real problem here is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury set the stage for the whole concept of “judicial review” of the then uncharted and untested concept of “constitutionality.”. There was no authority for SCOTUS to assume this power and authority.... They (CJ Taney if memory serves ?) simply deared courts has such authority... and that was that.

That said, right or wrong, (and unfortunately, as in many cases of law, right or wrong ceases to be an issue) that concept is now settled law.

That said, rather than concentrating on the issue of whether or not SCOTUS has reviewing authority, I prefer to concentrate in currently practical areas. I believe strongly that we will get a strong 10th ammendment case before the Court (probably not firearms related). I think the entire concept of some Constitution guarantee of “privacy” as nose under the tent to get the abortion issue federalized is very attackable. We win on that 10th amendment issue, we have created a conservative tsunami