Non sequitur.
It's Supreme Court Monday!
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
Non sequitur.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, dude......seriously. be GRATEFUL that the NRA is still controlled by fudds and butters, because if there were people on the board that believed like I do, the federal government would already have negated all of their unconstitutional firearms laws.
Irish Exit
Verified User
"Textualist" have no problem ignoring the text when it suits them. Stevens' dissent in Heller points out that there is nothing in the text of the Constitution to support the majority opinion.
I love liberal predictions.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
its hilarious that you anti gunners hang your belief on the words of two single justices over the 2nd Amendment. They were both dead wrong anyway as the nearly entire set of the debate minutes of the constitutional convention, plus numerous commentaries to the people for ratification bear out.
The NRA are more compromising than groups like GOA though. Of course the NRA has more political clout. Interestingly many gunowners consider the NRA a sellout organization.
Edit: I submit this post by Smarterthanyou as evidence:
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Whoever it turns out to be will be a racist by the end of the day lol.
Getin the ring
Verified User
This a great day to be an American,
the constitution will live on
#MAGA
the constitution will live on
#MAGA
Where is the evidence the constitutional framers were "textualists"or "originalists?"
In totality the constitution as a body of law is as brief as it is vague. That leads me to believe that, as a whole, the original intent was not
to create a document of governance for strict construction. I could go all in with textualism if the document was a form of behavior code or set of laws.
But it does not seem to be that. It is a description of the basic composition and mechanics of the federal government, vis a vis individuals, states and other countries.
The original intent is thus likely to have been for broad and loose interpretation of its ideas as applied to specific cases arising thereunder. You can't apply a broad or vague idea strictly.
So paradoxes abound. An example less likely to inflame the hot tempers of the retarded right and therefore a suitable teaching example for them would be in the area of the first amendment.
A strict constructionist might argue an absurdity, that speech, or assembly, or press means those disjointed specific items like a list, and that therefore the government can prohibit
any other type of expression. But the totality of the passage conveys an intent to prevent the government from stifling human expression. When things the framers said convey an idea
but back then they lacked the modern context, the broader idea should be applied to the new thing. That would effectuate original intent.
On second thought, perhaps a bit much to expect these hillbillies to understand a word of this complex thought, however.
In totality the constitution as a body of law is as brief as it is vague. That leads me to believe that, as a whole, the original intent was not
to create a document of governance for strict construction. I could go all in with textualism if the document was a form of behavior code or set of laws.
But it does not seem to be that. It is a description of the basic composition and mechanics of the federal government, vis a vis individuals, states and other countries.
The original intent is thus likely to have been for broad and loose interpretation of its ideas as applied to specific cases arising thereunder. You can't apply a broad or vague idea strictly.
So paradoxes abound. An example less likely to inflame the hot tempers of the retarded right and therefore a suitable teaching example for them would be in the area of the first amendment.
A strict constructionist might argue an absurdity, that speech, or assembly, or press means those disjointed specific items like a list, and that therefore the government can prohibit
any other type of expression. But the totality of the passage conveys an intent to prevent the government from stifling human expression. When things the framers said convey an idea
but back then they lacked the modern context, the broader idea should be applied to the new thing. That would effectuate original intent.
On second thought, perhaps a bit much to expect these hillbillies to understand a word of this complex thought, however.
I could probably fill a swimming pool with the liberal tears expended in this thread alone, Ms. GITR.
MAGA!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
because the constitution stands in the way of some of those addresses.......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
they are being screwed out of picks AND waves.......
Expect major meltdowns in the Fake News today
Liberal horror and conservative delight about the implications of the pick have crystalized into a debate about the newly constituted court's potential to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that upheld a legal right to an abortion.
Yet the focus on abortion fails to do justice to the sweeping changes that could be unleashed by a solidly conservative court.
The new justice could sway cases that define the role of religion in public life, determine the scope of gun rights, endorse a more restrictive interpretation of civil rights legislation and further loosen regulatory constraints on business.
The new majority will essentially leave Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, as the only likely potential swing vote. That fact alone reflects just how conservative the jurisprudence of the nation's highest bench is likely to be in the years to come.
"It's an historic decision. It's about more than the next election," DEMOCRAT Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois on NBC's "Meet the Press" said Sunday. "It's about what country the United States of America is going to chart as its course in the future on this Supreme Court."
http://archive.is/dL0AE#selection-1175.0-1203.271
Liberal horror and conservative delight about the implications of the pick have crystalized into a debate about the newly constituted court's potential to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that upheld a legal right to an abortion.
Yet the focus on abortion fails to do justice to the sweeping changes that could be unleashed by a solidly conservative court.
The new justice could sway cases that define the role of religion in public life, determine the scope of gun rights, endorse a more restrictive interpretation of civil rights legislation and further loosen regulatory constraints on business.
The new majority will essentially leave Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, as the only likely potential swing vote. That fact alone reflects just how conservative the jurisprudence of the nation's highest bench is likely to be in the years to come.
"It's an historic decision. It's about more than the next election," DEMOCRAT Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois on NBC's "Meet the Press" said Sunday. "It's about what country the United States of America is going to chart as its course in the future on this Supreme Court."
http://archive.is/dL0AE#selection-1175.0-1203.271
Think so?
I'm particularly enjoying this, because DEMOCRATS made it possible when they changed the rules. Maybe they thought they were the only ones who'd be allowed to confirm by simple majority.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
with the exception of a handgun in the home for self defense, what other gun law has been overturned by the courts for being unconstitutional?