Posted on 02/09/2003 7:35:21 AM PST by nwrep
Justice Janice Brown
Supreme Court: Moving On, Moving In, Moving Up
A vacancy could open up in the U.S. Supreme Court soon
By Daniel Klaidman, Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper NEWSWEEK
Feb. 17 issue: It's been nine years since the last vacancy opened up on the U.S. Supreme Court. That historically long drought could end this year with at least one resignation. Eager White House aides are stepping up preparation efforts, vetting candidates and contemplating a special media operation to deal with a potential confirmation battle.
Other observers think Bush could take another approach, appointing California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown instead. Brown is a conservative African-American who's ruled against affirmative action and abortion rights. Her nomination would let Bush add the court's third woman and second African-American in one swoop. And White House lawyers have already interviewed her. Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues cases before the court, believes Brown could even get the nod for chief justice. "An African-American female nominee is not going to be filibustered," he says. She doesn't have a record that will stop Democrats in their tracks. And after months of bitter Senate fights over nominations to lower courts, that could have an appeal all its own.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Fair enough. I think her rulings have shown that she does understand and respect the concept of limited government, but we simply haven't seen enough to make a sound judgement on 2nd A issues. So we'll leave it at that until such time she is nominated.
Right. And what would they need any of those icky weapons for if they have the authority to act,right? All they would have to do is say "Hey! All you bad mans,you just go away,you brutes!",and stamped their feet a few times.
The legality of black-powder cannons is irrelevant.
Not when you used them as a example of the weapons our founding fathers had access to,they ain't. You were the one who brought them up,not me.
Sea-going warfare today requires guns capable of penetrating significant armor.
BS. Naval rifles are damn near obsolete. It's a missle war now.
There was no intention to deny this to the people of the United States.
WHO is denying you the right to own cannons,or even Naval Rifles? There is a guy in California who has TWO SS-20 missles. If you have the bucks to buy this stuff and can stand to do the paperwork,you could get one too.
Please offer as an indication of our Founder's intent, any prohibition of a specific weapon of war prior to 1939.
There was no such thing as a weapon of mass destruction prior to the A-Bombs we developed in 1944-45. The closest thing to this was the smallpox-infected blankets given to the Indians during the French and Indian Wars.
I can't find the quote this morning, but at the time of our founding, it was said (paraphrasing) that we would not have to fear tyranny because "Americans are equipped with every terrible instrument of war".
So,are you all pissed off because you don't have vials of smallpox and anthrax,or is it only the dream of owning your own nuke that gives you a woody? Americans are STILL equipped with the modern equivalent of "every terrible instrument of war". Your insane whining about not being able to own nukes is what is irrelavent. Listen carefully,ok? The 2nd Amendment applies to THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN INDIVIDUAL TACTICAL WEAPONS,NOT STRATEGIC WEAPONS.
If our Founders had meant for people to only be armed with muskets and black-powder cannons, they could have said so.
The scary thing is you probably believe the above piece of fluff is profound.
You don't seem to recognize my challenge to you to provide support for this. Our founders did not recognize such a distinction. Although this is great material for a proposed Constitutional amendment, any restriction on my owning strategic weapons is unConstitutional no matter how proper you think that might be.
And please refrain from suggesting that I have a sexual relationship with nuclear weapons. It is unseemly in a polite forum like FreeRepublic.
Not in Kalifornia. That is where this discussion began.
Judge Brown has ruled that it is permissible to prohibit my owning a rifle with a pistol grip because she claims that there are restrictions in the Second Amendment which are not there.
You would prohibit me from owning a nuclear weapon because you claim that there are restrictions in the Second Amendment which are not there.
Both of you feel that you have the best interests of the nation at heart but neither is justified in allowing unConstitutional laws.
I have better things to do that waste my time with escapees from mental institutions. Good bye.
The federal Prohibition on alcohol required a Constitutional amendment since there is no provision in the Constitution to allow such prohibition.
Another Constitutional amendment was required to repeal Prohibition.
Today, people seem to think that the War on Drugs is somehow different and that the federal government can wage this war just because it is such a fine idea.
You seem to think that the federal government can outlaw nuclear weapons just because it is such a fine idea.
Others think that the federal government can outlaw some semi-automatic rifles because it is such a fine idea.
Of what possible use is a written Constitution if Congress can pass laws without restriction just because they seem to be fine ideas to some people?
And why do you think I am escaped from a mental institution because I think otherwise?
Our Founder's knew of no weapon which was so powerful that it could not be owned by the people. Now that weapons exist which seem to be powerful enough to outlaw, I think that it would be a nice idea to pass a Constitutional amendment that permits the federal government the power to outlaw them.
Because you don't have enough common sense to come in out of the rain. Sane people recogonize that the federal government DOES have the right to restrict access to genuine weapons of mass destruction such as nukes,chemical,or bio warfare agents to the point where not only can't individual citizens own them,but neither can state governments. The 2nd Amendment is all about INDIVIDUAL rights to own and possess common infantry weapons,NOT strategic weapons. You seem to have difficulty understanding basic things such as this,so you are not sane.
Firstly, governments do not have rights. They have powers granted to them by the consent of the governed. Our Constitution embodies the consent of the American people.
Like the justifications for the War on Drugs, the justifications for allowing the federal government the power to decide which arms are permitted and which are not is an invention quite apart from the Constitution. Our Founders intended that the federal government not have that power.
There may be great justification for granting that power to the federal government, but it has not been done. Everything you have said is consistent with the belief that the federal government can outlaw semi-automatic rifles because they have no legitimate civilian use. That is false.
This is exactly the point you are trying to make. You are a gun-grabber staking out your claim based on the bizarre claim that nukes and bio/chemical weapons are the equivalent of semi-auto rifles. Go away.
No. I stated that our Founders did not intend to grant the federal government the power to decide which arms may be kept and born by the people. You don't seem to be able to address that point. Instead, you attribute opinions to me which are not relevant to what the Constitution does or does not permit.
Perhaps you don't care that Congress now decides what powers the federal government will have. That is not what our Founders intended.
I HAVE addresses that very point,in every damn post I've made to you. It's not MY fault you are too pig-headed to accept it. The 2nd Amendment RECOGONIZES that each citizen has a INDIVIDUAL right to own and possess WEAPONS TYPICALLY CARRIED BY THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER. This is clear from reading the Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers. Crew served weapons and stragetic weapons were not addressed because there was no need to address them. Individual soldiers do NOT carry crew-served or strategic weapons into combat with them.
There is also the issue of TYPES of weapons. Being the bonehead anti-gunner that you are you are refusing to recoginize the VAST difference between a semi-automatic weapon and weapons of mass destruction. You are taking the idiotic (when the idiot is having a bad day) position that if it's ok for Bubba Kluxer or Antwan Gangbanger to have a semi-automatic rifle,it should also be ok for them to have nukes or vials of anthrax or smallpox.
What you REALLY are is a troll who is here hoping you can find some retard to agree with you that possessing WMD is the equivalent of possessing a semi-auto rifle,and then you can go back to your gun control buddies and make the claim that semi-autos are the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction,and pro-gunners want to be able to own nukes and bio/chemical weapons. You think it is clever to back yourself into a corner and take a absolutionist radical position,but that only exposes you for the radical statist that you really are. You can't find the situation you want to exploit naturally,so you are trying to create it.
1) Did the Founders intend for the federal government to decide which arms the people shall be permitted to keep and bear?
2) Should an individual be permitted to possess or use a nuclear weapon?
The answer to number 1 is "NO".
The answer to number 2 is "NO".
Gee...What a dilemma!
Here's the solution:
Amendment XXX: Congress shall have the power to prohibit the possession or use of nuclear weapons.
Please humor me by providing your answers to the two simple questions above.
Among other things, you have now concluded that I am an anti-gunner. I own at least fifteen firearms, five of which I must store in Nevada because anti-gunners in Kalifornia are terrified of rifles with pistol grips.
No,but nukes aren't "Arms" as the word was defined in the 18tg,19th,and 20th centuries. "Arms" were things you shouldered. Nukes as well as bio and chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction,not arms.
2) Should an individual be permitted to possess or use a nuclear weapon?
Of course not. Nor should people be allowed to have chemical or biological weapons.
Is it your contention then that prohibitions against arms which could not be shouldered were just overlooked for the 150 years prior to 1939? Please educate me regarding an "arm" of any kind which was federally banned prior to 1939.
As for whether "Nuclear Arms" are "arms"...Or whether "strategic arms" are "arms"... or whether "tactical nuclear arms" are "strategic" or "tactical"... The fact of the matter is that our Founders included no restrictions in the Second Amendment. And the amendment process is available to do that job.
The 1939 Miller decision resulted in a mistaken Supreme Court suggesting that it was their job to make a determination regarding the suitability of a particular "arm" to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated Militia. They were not even able to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was suitable for Militia use, despite the wide-spread use of such a gun as a "trench gun".
If our Founder's had intended that the Supreme Court would decide what arms are suitable for a Militia, then they could have done so. They did not.
This is easily addressed Constitutionally as follows:
Amendment XXX: The Supreme Court shall decide which arms the people may keep and bear.
There is no such power granted to the Supreme Court or to Congress.
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.