NY Times editorial underscores why media elite is losing relevance

NY Times editorial underscores why media elite is losing relevance

So sad that the New York Times’ editorial board has become so anti-gun in its philosophy that they choose to continually use their First Amendment right in an effort to crush the Second Amendment.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...derscores-why-media-elite-is-losing-relevance

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/29748pb

The 3 areas the court explicitly said a local government can regulate....

The NY Times "That right can be limited, the court explicitly said, with reasonable restrictions. But it provided very little guidance as to what is reasonable, leaving lawyers, lawmakers and judges to thrash it out in a bog of lawsuits that could take many years to clear."

No. The supreme court does provide guidance " We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying

of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.

Chicago, New York Can regulate those 3 areas!

Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.




--

I'm no expert but I don't see anything in their relating to "Interpretation of the Constitution" or "At their discretion, guiding in some cases private citizens or areas in the proper practice of the accepted interpretation of the constitution at that time"

am I missing something?

All branches and all levels of government are tasked with upholding the Constitution. The unique position of the Supreme Court is that, if it decides that something is unconstitutional, then lower level courts will rule for or against defendants accordingly. If they don't, they will be reversed on appeal.

By specifying that laws are constitutional or unconstitutional, they are merely signaling how they will rule for or against defendants in the future.

wolffe said:

I'm no expert but I don't see anything in their relating to "Interpretation of the Constitution" or "At their discretion, guiding in some cases private citizens or areas in the proper practice of the accepted interpretation of the constitution at that time"

am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Marbury v. Madison
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/marbury.html

Considering that in Marbury, the SCOTUS claimed that ability for itself to determine constitutionality, one might still wonder where the power to claim the power came from.

I think it is natural that all branches of all levels of government can determine constitutionality--as long as they don't run afoul of too many other levels' and branches' ideas of constitutionality.

Using the word "elite" to describe the media, or the "ruling class", or the super-rich, or whatever group is pulling a particular socio-political string, is something we need to get away from. It gives power to these people, which they DO NOT have, and it sets them up on a pedestal upon which they DO NOT sit...

The word "elite" denotes that a group is somehow more lofty, privileged, intelligent, or powerful than the "common man". With regards to the Media, nothing could be further from the truth. Many media personalities are actually LOWER than the majority of the people--in terms of integrity, character, and intelligence. Rush Limbaugh is a prescription drug junky. Glenn Beck was a falling-down alcoholic. Keith Olberman (and Limbaugh) is qualified to be a political commentator because of his illustrious career as a sportscaster. Bob Woodward is a proven liar. John Dean is a turncoat, a snitch, and a proven perjurer, and was married to a know DC call-girl. Carl Rove is a proven perjurer, a war criminal, and essentially took an 8-year dump on the Constitution.

These people are NOT "elite" in any sense of the word, unless you mean by "elite" that they have been able to parlay lives of crime, lies, perjury, duplicity, and fraud into a LOT of money in the form of big payoffs from their puppet masters to spew propaganda, confuse the issues, and foment racist and classist tensions in the American populace...

Please don't use the word "elite" when describing these people. There are plenty of other words that are much more appropriate and more accurately describe them:

Fascist
Puppet
Propaganda-spewing
Totalitarian
Racist
Classist
Agent Provocateur
Bigoted
Feudal
Banker-controlled


But PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't use the term "elite". It gives the media--which is really just a puppet of the evil Globalist Banksters--much more legitimacy, power, and weight than they really have, or deserve...

Words have power--even if that power is subtle and subconscious--and we need to be VERY aware of the words we use. Choosing certain words--spin-laden, agrandizing, or partisan language--can actually be self-defeating.

Words are living, breathing things, and like a virus, they can infect your brain. Using the wrong words--words that are not truthful or accurate--can infect your thinking like a plague. Using the right words is like a big dose of antibiotics--it can flush out your thinking and leave your brain clean, pure, and fully functional again.

And choosing the PROPER words--words that are truthful, accurate, and genuinely descriptive--can be a TREMENDOUSLY powerful tool in overcoming the trance under which most people live...