Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: CHP: Privilege vs. Right

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pueblo West, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    120

    CHP: Privilege vs. Right

    I realize this is an open carry forum but there is a knowledge pool here I'd like to access.

    IS a CHP a right or a privilege?

    The reason I ask is that I've seen it mentioned in other threads and more than one sheriffs department in this state seems to feel its a privilege.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Calhan, Co.
    Posts
    340
    My personal belief on the matter is that the right to keep and bear arms should enable those who are law abiding citizens to be able to carry in any way that they see fit. Many people, because of the stigma surrounding firearms by the anti's and those who aren't informed on the subject, choose to carry concealed. This is an ideal form of carry in certain situations, but it is not protected under the Colorado constitution as open carry is. So, in essence, I personally believe it is a right, but until there is a law or amendment passed it remains a privilege in the eyes of the law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262
    It's a right.

    And anyone who'll tell you otherwise is either a fool, or they want you disarmed.

    Of course the peacekeepers would prefer if they didn't have to consider every private citizen as if he were packing. If the law says we can't CC without a permission slip, then that law is not to be taken seriously, because laws that are contrary to the Constitution (the FEDERAL Constitution since the State Constitution is in violation there) are null and void. Of course, they are many and they are powerful, and they have the right of might. Despite what's right.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    34
    It's a Federal Constitutional Right. Plain and simple.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Permit: 1. Permission
    2. A document or certificate giving permission to do something.

    A permit is a privilege from the Corporate STATE.

    If it was a Right you would not need a permit.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    Permit: 1. Permission
    2. A document or certificate giving permission to do something.

    A permit is a privilege from the Corporate STATE.

    If it was a Right you would not need a permit.
    No, if the Right was not infringed upon, you would not need a permit. The Second Amendment addresses the Right to keep and bear. Concealed is a form of "to bear." It is a form that does not readily pass muster with the LE (nor liberal) mindset. It is no less a Right simply because our government (and many citizens) chose to restrict it with a permit system.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    The Second Amendment addresses the Right to keep and bear. Concealed is a form of "to bear."
    Well, if we're really going to get all Constitutional then we must take into account that the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. It was not until much later that the 14th Amendment was used to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights. The problem, of course, is that the Founders certainly never favored this and the authors of the 14th Amendment never thought their amendment allowed for this. It was the invention of activist judges.

    The 2nd Amendment (despite McDonald) should not apply to the states. Now, obviously, I do not like it when states infringe on gun rights but that is a state issue not a federal one.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    Well, if we're really going to get all Constitutional then we must take into account that the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. It was not until much later that the 14th Amendment was used to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights. The problem, of course, is that the Founders certainly never favored this and the authors of the 14th Amendment never thought their amendment allowed for this. It was the invention of activist judges.

    The 2nd Amendment (despite McDonald) should not apply to the states. Now, obviously, I do not like it when states infringe on gun rights but that is a state issue not a federal one.
    1st 10 Amendments apply to the states. (The people) All this other crap is just clutter created by and for the idiots who've made a continual living interpreting that clutter since the Constitution was ratified. I wrote this awhile back... but I'll re-print it here.

    "Rights

    All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.

    Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.

    Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government legitimately extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.
    Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny.

    Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

    Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs, oligarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them as 'they alone' control and determine such liberties as the people may enjoy or not. Such governments abrogate personal responsibility to the authority of the State."

    To address the OP's question specifically: SCJ Opinion: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008

    SCJ Opinion: ‘Bearing Arms’

    (The language, purpose and premise of the 2A is so simple... yet so disingenously 'interpreted' by those who think they are so cunning, so above it all. These 'elitists' , who when buttonholed for an answer on the definition of 'bear' will invariably cower behind some imaginary judicial robes and claim that is not the opinion of SCOTUS.) THIS is the opinion of SCOTUS:

    "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute. Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization." : SCJ Ginsburg 2008

    "Originally Posted by SCOTUS
    "At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state.’ It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit"


    Of note... and I can't imagine nobody seems to have caught this... "SCJ Ginsburg: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

    Therefore... it seems obvious that the 'bearing' part of 2A was intended to be exercised at the descretion of the bearer. "upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket" Open or concealed made no difference. No difference was intended. If a certain thing is not prohibited, then it is legitimate by default.
    All US laws must be consistant with the Constitution or they have no legitimate effect of law at all. Yet.... we have such 'laws' in abundance along with those who would willingly enforce such legislative contrivances as imposed.

    'Permit' is permission by government contrivance. The permit to conceal arms is to conceal... not to carry. No such caveat addressing mode of carry exists in the 2A. The 2A does not specify 'firearms' either. 'Arms'! ..."At the descretion of the bearer'." Anything else is contradictory to 'Shall not be infringed'.

    This is the entire premise of 'Constitutional Carry' as the requirement for permit for a fee in the free exercise of a right is unconstitutional. In Arizona...the words "shall not be impaired" are written in Art 2 Sec 26.

    The Colorado Constitution is not in agreement with the US Constitution:

    Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

    The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

    It would appear that the Colorado CHP permit itself is prima facie violation of the states Constitution.

    Permits to bear arms are unconstitutional. RKBA is a right... not a privledge.
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 10-28-2010 at 12:58 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    I'm not going to get into it (I'm too busy) but Sonora Rebel you are completely wrong. The Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to apply to the states. Incorporation is unique to modern jurisprudence. The incorporation of the 1st Amendment did not occur until Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) when the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was said to "incorporate" the religion clause thus applying it to the states. That is a curious 149 years after the 1st Amendment was ratified and 72 years after the 14th was ratified. It was pure judicial activism on the part of the Roosevelt court.

    Prior to the invention of "incorporation," the Bill of Rights was never applied to the states. From the very founding of our country, the Bill of Rights only bound the federal government. Learn your history.
    Last edited by entartet17; 10-28-2010 at 07:04 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    Well, if we're really going to get all Constitutional then we must take into account that the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. It was not until much later that the 14th Amendment was used to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights. The problem, of course, is that the Founders certainly never favored this and the authors of the 14th Amendment never thought their amendment allowed for this. It was the invention of activist judges.

    The 2nd Amendment (despite McDonald) should not apply to the states. Now, obviously, I do not like it when states infringe on gun rights but that is a state issue not a federal one.
    When crafted, correct. As amended, it DOES now apply to the states. And?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    I'm not going to get into it (I'm too busy) but Sonora Rebel you are completely wrong. The Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to apply to the states. Incorporation is unique to modern jurisprudence. The incorporation of the 1st Amendment did not occur until Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) when the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was said to "incorporate" the religion clause thus applying it to the states. That is a curious 149 years after the 1st Amendment was ratified and 72 years after the 14th was ratified. It was pure judicial activism on the part of the Roosevelt court.

    Prior to the invention of "incorporation," the Bill of Rights was never applied to the states. From the very founding of our country, the Bill of Rights only bound the federal government. Learn your history.
    So? SCOTUS is the law of the land, and SCOTUS is in disagreement with you.


    And, whether you decide to agree or not, you must keep one thing in mind. It isn't a Right simply because it says so in the US Constitution and BoR, and spoken by SCOTUS. It is a Right because it IS a Right. The other stuff on paper merely tells our government to not infringe upon it.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-29-2010 at 08:43 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    I'm not going to get into it (I'm too busy) but Sonora Rebel you are completely wrong. The Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to apply to the states. Incorporation is unique to modern jurisprudence. The incorporation of the 1st Amendment did not occur until Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) when the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was said to "incorporate" the religion clause thus applying it to the states. That is a curious 149 years after the 1st Amendment was ratified and 72 years after the 14th was ratified. It was pure judicial activism on the part of the Roosevelt court.

    Prior to the invention of "incorporation," the Bill of Rights was never applied to the states. From the very founding of our country, the Bill of Rights only bound the federal government. Learn your history.
    Spoken like a true statist. Cluttered much? Rights exist in the presence of government or none. Rights are either recognized, limited, or denied.

  13. #13
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    When crafted, correct. As amended, it DOES now apply to the states. And?
    No, it doesn't. The 14th Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS can say it wants but that does not change the intent of the amendment nor the plain reading of it from saying otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    So? SCOTUS is the law of the land, and SCOTUS is in disagreement with you.

    And, whether you decide to agree or not, you must keep one thing in mind. It isn't a Right simply because it says so in the US Constitution and BoR, and spoken by SCOTUS. It is a Right because it IS a Right. The other stuff on paper merely tells our government to not infringe upon it.
    SCOTUS has also upheld the ability of the federal government to ban certain types of firearms, regulate their sale, and so on. Do you agree with that? SCOTUS has rubber-stamped the erosion of our liberties and the growth of government (especially since the New Deal). Oh, and THE CONSTITUTION is the "law of the land" not the Supreme Court.

    I never said government confers rights. Rights exist independent of government decree. But, you said, "The Second Amendment addresses the Right to keep and bear. Concealed is a form of 'to bear'" in regards to state restrictions on concealed carry. The 2nd Amendment was not intended to apply to the states. It is a limit on federal power. Every federal restriction on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional. States, who exist as free and sovereign entities, can restrict firearm ownership/carrying/etc as long as it does not violate that particular state's constitution. Does that mean I think states should restrict gun rights? Of course not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    Spoken like a true statist. Cluttered much? Rights exist in the presence of government or none. Rights are either recognized, limited, or denied.
    Yeah, I'm a total statist. Despite the fact that I'm a minarchist (in the Nozickian sense), constitutionalist Old Right conservative, and borderline anarcho-capitalist (aka the exact opposite of statism). I agree that rights do not come from the government. But using the 2nd Amendment to criticize state firearms restrictions is ridiculous. Anyone who claims to respect and uphold the U.S. Constitution cannot ignore the intent of its drafters and the plain reading of the text. Libertarians/Conservatives should not stoop to the level of the Left by rewriting the Constitution to get their policy preferences enacted.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    No, it doesn't. The 14th Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS can say it wants but that does not change the intent of the amendment nor the plain reading of it from saying otherwise.
    SCOTUS has spoken on this specific. Attempting to ignore that isn't effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    SCOTUS has also upheld the ability of the federal government to ban certain types of firearms, regulate their sale, and so on. Do you agree with that?
    Where have they done that?
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    SCOTUS has rubber-stamped the erosion of our liberties and the growth of government (especially since the New Deal). Oh, and THE CONSTITUTION is the "law of the land" not the Supreme Court.
    Scotus IS the arbiter of the Constitution and the BoR, whether you are willing to understand or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    I never said government confers rights. Rights exist independent of government decree.
    Very good. Then you must understand that all the blather about "constitution says, 14th am doesn't say" is just that. Blather.
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    But, you said, "The Second Amendment addresses the Right to keep and bear. Concealed is a form of 'to bear'" in regards to state restrictions on concealed carry. The 2nd Amendment was not intended to apply to the states. It is a limit on federal power. Every federal restriction on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional. States, who exist as free and sovereign entities, can restrict firearm ownership/carrying/etc as long as it does not violate that particular state's constitution. Does that mean I think states should restrict gun rights? Of course not.
    No, they cannot. Incorporation. Whether you like it or not, that IS the law now.



    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    Yeah, I'm a total statist. Despite the fact that I'm a minarchist (in the Nozickian sense), constitutionalist Old Right conservative, and borderline anarcho-capitalist (aka the exact opposite of statism). I agree that rights do not come from the government. But using the 2nd Amendment to criticize state firearms restrictions is ridiculous. Anyone who claims to respect and uphold the U.S. Constitution cannot ignore the intent of its drafters and the plain reading of the text. Libertarians/Conservatives should not stoop to the level of the Left by rewriting the Constitution to get their policy preferences enacted.
    Being that does not negate what the Constitution, BoR, AND SCOTUS say. Your choice to disagree does not make it different than reality.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    SCOTUS has spoken on this specific. Attempting to ignore that isn't effective.
    You're the one ignoring facts. I am well aware that the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights. But that does not mean their interpretation is correct. The Supreme Court is anything but infallible. You're laboring under the delusion that if SCOTUS issues some decision it is unquestionable and authoritative. The Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government, not an impartial body, especially when state's rights are concerned (which is why nullification and interposition were advocated by Jefferson and Madison).

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Where have they done that?
    U.S. v. Miller (1939) upheld the restriction of short-barreled shotguns; U.S. v. Powell (1975) upheld the ban on mailing firearms to individuals without an FFL; U.S. v. Freed (1971) also upheld NFA including the regulation of the manufacture, importation, and sale of firearms; U.S. v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms (1984) said the BATFE could still seize firearms from someone if they were charged with violating the Gun Control Act of 1968 even if they were acquitted; and numerous cases (too many to list and including several of the above-mentioned cases) have upheld the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (even though it has been amended since then) which is the source of the entire FFL system, the ban on "Saturday-Night Specials," and is the source for every federal restriction on firearm ownership. All rubber-stamped by SCOTUS.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Scotus IS the arbiter of the Constitution and the BoR, whether you are willing to understand or not.
    SCOTUS may think it's the sole arbiter but that does not make it so. Are you telling me that if tomorrow SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment did not protect political speech or freedom of religion, then we just have to accept it? Or if they ruled that the President can wage war without the consent of congress, we just have to accept that? (of course, presidents have already done that and SCOTUS obliged them). More poignently to the gun issue, what if they reversed themselves and said the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right? SCOTUS cannot simply rewrite the Constitution and expect everyone to be ok with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    No, they cannot. Incorporation. Whether you like it or not, that IS the law now.
    Yes, it is "law" now until someone changes it. Of course, any law that does not conform to the Constitution is no law at all. Anything the federal government does that it does not have a specific enumerated power to do is unconstitutional. State's should resist federal tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Being that does not negate what the Constitution, BoR, AND SCOTUS say.
    I love that you bring up what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say. Obviously you don't care at all about what they say, all you care about is if SCOTUS has pontificated on the subject. If you really cared about what the Constitution says, you wouldnt be disregarding what the text actually says and what it was intended to mean.
    Last edited by entartet17; 10-30-2010 at 03:36 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    You're the one ignoring facts. I am well aware that the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights. But that does not mean their interpretation is correct. The Supreme Court is anything but infallible. You're laboring under the delusion that if SCOTUS issues some decision it is unquestionable and authoritative. The Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government, not an impartial body, especially when state's rights are concerned (which is why nullification and interposition were advocated by Jefferson and Madison).
    You are laboring under the delusion that if SCOTUS issues some decision it is questionable and wrong!
    Whether you agree with their decision or not, it IS the "law of the land" now. And, by virtue of their decision, the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to the states. As a statist, you appear to be OK with a state legislating your rights into submission.


    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    U.S. v. Miller (1939) upheld the restriction of short-barreled shotguns; U.S. v. Powell (1975) upheld the ban on mailing firearms to individuals without an FFL; U.S. v. Freed (1971) also upheld NFA including the regulation of the manufacture, importation, and sale of firearms; U.S. v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms (1984) said the BATFE could still seize firearms from someone if they were charged with violating the Gun Control Act of 1968 even if they were acquitted; and numerous cases (too many to list and including several of the above-mentioned cases) have upheld the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (even though it has been amended since then) which is the source of the entire FFL system, the ban on "Saturday-Night Specials," and is the source for every federal restriction on firearm ownership. All rubber-stamped by SCOTUS.
    And frankly, not approached in recent decisions.



    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    SCOTUS may think it's the sole arbiter but that does not make it so. Are you telling me that if tomorrow SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment did not protect political speech or freedom of religion, then we just have to accept it?
    YES. Under our system of government, that IS reality. Do you understand that, or do you have some other statist view that disagrees with reality?
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    Or if they ruled that the President can wage war without the consent of congress, we just have to accept that? (of course, presidents have already done that and SCOTUS obliged them). More poignently to the gun issue, what if they reversed themselves and said the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right? SCOTUS cannot simply rewrite the Constitution and expect everyone to be ok with it.
    Up to the moment SCOTUS released their decision in DC v Heller, it WAS open to interpretation. Otherwise, it wouldn't even have been a case.
    The authors of the 2nd Amendment wrote what they meant to write. The original meaning is somewhat hidden. (really). For it to be a clear individual Right without ambiguity, a simple declaration in the text like "this is an Individual Right" would have removed the wiggle room. Without that clear text, it DID need interpretation by SCOTUS, because obviously many people, including the legislative body of DC interpreted it differently! That doesn't mean the view of gun owners was correct, even though I sure believe that to be the case. That doesn't mean the view of gun-grabbers was incorrect, even though I sure believe THAT to be the case also. It DOES mean that (absent reversal by SCOTUS) the Second Amendment DOES apply to the states; the same as virtually all the rest of the BoR through Incorporation. The time to disallow this is long past. It was "allowed" when the 14th Amendment was ratified, by the states.


    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    Yes, it is "law" now until someone changes it. Of course, any law that does not conform to the Constitution is no law at all. Anything the federal government does that it does not have a specific enumerated power to do is unconstitutional. State's should resist federal tyranny.
    Did the 14th amendment get presented and passed by the process?



    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17
    I love that you bring up what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say. Obviously you don't care at all about what they say, all you care about is if SCOTUS has pontificated on the subject. If you really cared about what the Constitution says, you wouldnt be disregarding what the text actually says and what it was intended to mean.
    No, that is completely false. I care very much what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say. You do to; unless it disagrees with your statist views.
    I am not disregarding what the text actually says. Where do you feel I am doing this?
    I am not disregarding what the text was intended to mean. Where do you feel I am doing this?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Nice that this person believes this crap.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Page 67 of the McDonald decision explains why you are wrong. The 14th amendment was a promise, broken by the Supreme Court of 1871-1875, to the ancestors of Otis McDonald, that the United States would not allow the states and localities to ban persons from exercising their civil liberties, overturning the Scott v. Sanford decision. That any gun owner would support the idea that the 14th amendment doesn't apply enumerated rights in the bill of rights to the states is purely a testiment to results based constitutional determinations, because one doesn't like some of the results of the decisions they made in re incorporation.

    It was the Supreme Court of Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank that was activist, not the McDonald court.

    The fact is that the PorI clause should have been used to apply the 14th amendment to the states, rather than the due process clause, which results in the unusual modern jurisprudence of substantive due process that is spoken of.

    I usually don't respond to posts such as this, but considering that I'm laying the groundwork to a potential futre challenge of the CHP law in my case against Denver County, I have some interest in making sure this crap doesn't ferment.

  18. #18
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    1st 10 Amendments apply to the states. (The people) All this other crap is just clutter created by and for the idiots who've made a continual living interpreting that clutter since the Constitution was ratified. I wrote this awhile back... but I'll re-print it here.

    "Rights

    All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.

    Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.

    Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government legitimately extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.
    Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny.

    Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

    Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs, oligarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them as 'they alone' control and determine such liberties as the people may enjoy or not. Such governments abrogate personal responsibility to the authority of the State."

    To address the OP's question specifically: SCJ Opinion: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008

    SCJ Opinion: ‘Bearing Arms’

    (The language, purpose and premise of the 2A is so simple... yet so disingenously 'interpreted' by those who think they are so cunning, so above it all. These 'elitists' , who when buttonholed for an answer on the definition of 'bear' will invariably cower behind some imaginary judicial robes and claim that is not the opinion of SCOTUS.) THIS is the opinion of SCOTUS:

    "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute. Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization." : SCJ Ginsburg 2008

    "Originally Posted by SCOTUS
    "At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state.’ It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit"


    Of note... and I can't imagine nobody seems to have caught this... "SCJ Ginsburg: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

    Therefore... it seems obvious that the 'bearing' part of 2A was intended to be exercised at the descretion of the bearer. "upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket" Open or concealed made no difference. No difference was intended. If a certain thing is not prohibited, then it is legitimate by default.
    All US laws must be consistant with the Constitution or they have no legitimate effect of law at all. Yet.... we have such 'laws' in abundance along with those who would willingly enforce such legislative contrivances as imposed.

    'Permit' is permission by government contrivance. The permit to conceal arms is to conceal... not to carry. No such caveat addressing mode of carry exists in the 2A. The 2A does not specify 'firearms' either. 'Arms'! ..."At the descretion of the bearer'." Anything else is contradictory to 'Shall not be infringed'.

    This is the entire premise of 'Constitutional Carry' as the requirement for permit for a fee in the free exercise of a right is unconstitutional. In Arizona...the words "shall not be impaired" are written in Art 2 Sec 26.

    The Colorado Constitution is not in agreement with the US Constitution:

    Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

    The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

    It would appear that the Colorado CHP permit itself is prima facie violation of the states Constitution.

    Permits to bear arms are unconstitutional. RKBA is a right... not a privledge.

    Excellent. Just excellent.

    Just so you all know, now is the best time in recent history to CHALLENGE the unConstitutionality of requiring a CHP, up to the Supreme Court if necessary, because of all of the 2A activity going on lately.

  19. #19
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    You are laboring under the delusion that if SCOTUS issues some decision it is questionable and wrong!
    No, I'm questioning specific decisions made the court, not making broad assertions regarding every SCOTUS decision. You're the one who is making an argument that whatever SCOTUS says is settled law and cannot be questioned, thereby lumping together every decision handed down by the court regardless of whether or not the decision is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    As a statist, you appear to be OK with a state legislating your rights into submission.
    I'm glad to see you were able to last to the fourth sentence of your response before unleashing an ad hominem attack by calling me a "statist." Great argument. I am certainly not ok with a state legislating my rights into submission. In case you forgot how our federal system works, there is a little thing called a "state constitution." They're really nifty. And in these "state constitutions" have sections remarkably similar to the Bill of Rights which protect the rights of the citizens from the state government. You see, unlike you apparently, I disdain all forms of tyranny whether they be at the state or federal level. You seem to be perfectly ok with the tyranny of the federal government, especially when that tyranny manifests itself under the guise of the federal judiciary.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    And frankly, not approached in recent decisions.
    Here we go. I supply you with relevant facts on how the Supreme Court has eroded gun rights and your response is "well, they haven't done anything lately." All of those decisions I listed have never been overturned and are apparently, as you would have it, settled law.


    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    YES. Under our system of government, that IS reality. Do you understand that, or do you have some other statist view that disagrees with reality?
    No, under our system of government that is not reality. And again with the statist attack. Are really that unaware that you are arguing for a federal government with complete power to alter itself, rewrite the Constitution, and do anything is pleases through the Supreme Court? That is, an unlimited government with complete and total power. You do realize that actually is statism, right?

    What's worse is that you think SCOTUS really can do that. So the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution to outline the new government with the specific intent of limiting the size and power of the federal government, reserving most functions of government to the several states. These same people created one branch of government, the judiciary, which was all powerful and could freely rewrite and reinterpret at will the Constitution they so carefully drafted. They were so concerned about the size and scope of government that they thought it would be a good idea to give absolute power to one branch of government (the branch least responsible to the people) to twist and distort the Constitution on a whim. That makes no sense whatsoever. Why draft a Constitution, the very essence of which is to formalize and limit the government, if the Supreme Court can, at any time, simply change and reinterpret the text to mean whatever they want it to mean? What asininity. If you really think that was the vision of the judiciary the Founders meant, you clearly have no grasp of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    The authors of the 2nd Amendment wrote what they meant to write. The original meaning is somewhat hidden. (really).
    The original meaning is only hidden if you have never actually read the 2nd Amendment or the debates at the Constitutional Convention over what it means. It's crystal clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    For it to be a clear individual Right without ambiguity, a simple declaration in the text like "this is an Individual Right" would have removed the wiggle room.
    Oh yes, the Founders of our country should have had the foresight to realize that you, wrightme, might somehow miss their clear intent and should have written it the way that would have pleased you.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    It was "allowed" when the 14th Amendment was ratified, by the states[....]
    Did the 14th amendment get presented and passed by the process?
    It's funny that you bring that up since the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified (of course, even if it had been, your perverted incorporation view would still be incongruent with its original intent). When the Republicans proposed the 14th Amendment it passed the 2/3 requirement in Congress and was sent to the states for ratification (of course, it only passed because the Radical Republicans refused to seat the elected representatives from the South after the 1866 election). But even so, it did not really meet the 2/3 requirement. It was one vote short of passing so they voted to not seat the newly elected (and anti-14th Am.) Senator Stockton of NJ even though they had already voted to seat him. They did not have the votes to expel him so they illegally prohibited him from voting.

    When Oregon voted to ratify it, the amendment passed when two seats were under dispute. Two Republicans had been elected under suspicious circumstances. An investigation determined that the Democrats had in fact won those two seats. It was decided that the vote to ratify needed to be redone since two of the voters were actually ineligible. This time it failed to pass. The US government refused to accept their second vote even though it occurred while the ratification process was still continuing.

    Both Ohio and New Jersey initially voted for ratification but swiftly rescinded their ratification (again, while ratification was still occurring. That is, it had not passed yet). New Jersey in particular questioned the ambiguity of the wording of the amendment, fearing it would be used to expand the power of the federal government.

    Even Tennessee's ratification is dubious. The opponents of the 14th Amendment in their legislature refused to attend the vote so that there would not be a quorum and the vote would have to be postponed. The supporters of the 14th Amendment literally kidnapped two of the legislators against ratification and forcibly brought them to the legislature so a quorum could be obtained.

    All of the former Confederate states (except Tennessee) refused to ratify the amendment. In 1866 the Radical Republicans declared that governments of the Southern states illegal and illegitimate. They refused to seat their elected representatives and required them, at the threat of invasion and indefinite occupation, to ratify the 14th Amendment. Of course, there is a problem here. The Radicals did not view the Southern states as being a part of the US and that they lost all of their rights when the seceded. They also declared their duly elected governments to be illegitimate. These same Radical Republicans expected these non-states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution even though they were not states and even though their state governments (who would have been the ones to vote on and approve the 14th Amendment) were supposedly illegitimate and illegal. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Plus, one can hardly consider forced ratification (at the threat of military invasion and occupation) in any conceivable way to be compatible with our system of government.

    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I am not disregarding what the text actually says. Where do you feel I am doing this?
    I am not disregarding what the text was intended to mean. Where do you feel I am doing this?
    In several areas.

    Since you claim to respect the Constitution, why don't you actually read it? Where in Article III does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the power to be the sole arbiter of constitutionality? For that matter, where does it give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution at all? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. Judicial Review is a made-up doctrine fabricated by...*drumroll*...the Supreme Court itself! How convenient. Jefferson argued, contra Marshall, that the concept of judicial review existed nowhere in the Constitution.

    You completely ignore the intent of the 14th Amendment.
    Immediately after the Civil War, many southern states passed Black Codes to discriminate against the newly freed slaves. The Republicans (who obviously controlled Congress at the time) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 aiming to protect the basic rights of blacks in the South. The Act was vetoed by Andrew Johnson because it was unconstitutional in that the federal government had no delegated power to pass such legislation. Congress overrode Johnson's veto and the Act became law (though the question as to its constitutionality was not resolved). However, there were two problems facing the Republicans: the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision and fears of a stronger Democratic Party that could overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

    To resolve these issues the Republicans passed the 14th Amendment with the aim of overturning the key provision of Dred Scott and ending the constitutionality question of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by enshrining its provisions in the text of the Constitution itself. Section one of the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to the freed slaves (overturning Dred Scott). It also guaranteed basic rights for freed blacks (namely that blacks were entitled to equal protection under the law). The phrases in Section One of the 14th Amendment have specific meanings that are tied to the Civil Rights Act, namely the freedom of blacks travel freely, to enter into contracts, sue in courts, testify in courts, and own property. Section Two protected black suffrage by punishing states with a reduction of their congressional representation if they denied blacks suffrage, but this was overridden by the 15th Amendment.

    Then we come to the Slaughter-House Cases which correctly found that the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not extend rights to freed blacks other than the basic rights of U.S. citizenship (completely in keeping with the original intent of the amendment). The Court even said the white butchers who were parties to the cases did not have a claim under the Equal Protection Clause because its purpose was only to protect blacks.

    The whole object of the 14th Amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Indeed, there were people who wanted a more expansive amendment. For instance, the Blaine Amendment (different from Blaine Amendment of 1875) considered adding the protections of the First Amendment to the 14th Amendment. His amendment obviously did not pass but it illustrates that he understood that the 14th Amendment, as it was passed by Congress, did not apply the First Amendment to the states.

    Even Justice Felix Frankfurter, who was hardly some far-right extremist, said, "The relevant historical materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand incorporation of the first eight amendments making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States."
    Last edited by entartet17; 11-02-2010 at 05:36 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    Nice that this person believes this crap.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Page 67 of the McDonald decision explains why you are wrong. The 14th amendment was a promise, broken by the Supreme Court of 1871-1875, to the ancestors of Otis McDonald, that the United States would not allow the states and localities to ban persons from exercising their civil liberties, overturning the Scott v. Sanford decision. That any gun owner would support the idea that the 14th amendment doesn't apply enumerated rights in the bill of rights to the states is purely a testiment to results based constitutional determinations, because one doesn't like some of the results of the decisions they made in re incorporation.

    It was the Supreme Court of Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank that was activist, not the McDonald court.

    The fact is that the PorI clause should have been used to apply the 14th amendment to the states, rather than the due process clause, which results in the unusual modern jurisprudence of substantive due process that is spoken of.

    I usually don't respond to posts such as this, but considering that I'm laying the groundwork to a potential futre challenge of the CHP law in my case against Denver County, I have some interest in making sure this crap doesn't ferment.

    Nail meet hammer. bravo.

    To answer OP... I think that it is a right, that we have given away, and now must fight to get BACK as a right. Until then, in most states it will be a privilege.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    No, it doesn't. The 14th Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS can say it wants but that does not change the intent of the amendment nor the plain reading of it from saying otherwise.



    SCOTUS has also upheld the ability of the federal government to ban certain types of firearms, regulate their sale, and so on. Do you agree with that? SCOTUS has rubber-stamped the erosion of our liberties and the growth of government (especially since the New Deal). Oh, and THE CONSTITUTION is the "law of the land" not the Supreme Court.

    I never said government confers rights. Rights exist independent of government decree. But, you said, "The Second Amendment addresses the Right to keep and bear. Concealed is a form of 'to bear'" in regards to state restrictions on concealed carry. The 2nd Amendment was not intended to apply to the states. It is a limit on federal power. Every federal restriction on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional. States, who exist as free and sovereign entities, can restrict firearm ownership/carrying/etc as long as it does not violate that particular state's constitution. Does that mean I think states should restrict gun rights? Of course not.



    Yeah, I'm a total statist. Despite the fact that I'm a minarchist (in the Nozickian sense), constitutionalist Old Right conservative, and borderline anarcho-capitalist (aka the exact opposite of statism). I agree that rights do not come from the government. But using the 2nd Amendment to criticize state firearms restrictions is ridiculous. Anyone who claims to respect and uphold the U.S. Constitution cannot ignore the intent of its drafters and the plain reading of the text. Libertarians/Conservatives should not stoop to the level of the Left by rewriting the Constitution to get their policy preferences enacted.
    The 14th Amendment guarantees "Equal protection of the law." To each citizen of the United States. While the due process clause has been in vogue when incorporating, the simple fact is that the later amendments interact with the BoR in many situations. The Constitution doesn't stop with the 10th Amendment. The 14th clarifies, by either clause, the first 10 with respect to applicability. John Marshall said "it is a Constitution we are expounding." The provision for additional amendments is the vehicle to do so.

    McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
    McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316 (1819).

    We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.
    4 Wheaton 316, 407.
    This provision is made in a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.
    4 Wheaton 316, 415.
    Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
    4 Wheaton 316, 421.
    The power to tax involves the power to destroy.
    4 Wheaton 316, 431.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 11-02-2010 at 04:54 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by entartet17 View Post
    No, I'm questioning specific decisions made the court, not making broad assertions regarding every SCOTUS decision. You're the one who is making an argument that whatever SCOTUS says is settled law and cannot be questioned, thereby lumping together every decision handed down by the court regardless of whether or not the decision is correct.
    What do you present that counters my view that SCOTUS decision is "settled law?"

    I do not agree with all SCOTUS decisions. But, what do you offer that supports your view? SCOTUS decisions ARE 'settled law."


    Whether you like it or not, SCOTUS is the arbiter. Until and unless enough desire change, it IS our reality. We don't have to agree with SCOTUS decisions, or like them, but that does not invalidate them.
    Last edited by wrightme; 11-03-2010 at 12:37 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    What do you present that counters my view that SCOTUS decision is "settled law?"

    I do not agree with all SCOTUS decisions. But, what do you offer that supports your view? SCOTUS decisions ARE 'settled law."


    Whether you like it or not, SCOTUS is the arbiter. Until and unless enough desire change, it IS our reality. We don't have to agree with SCOTUS decisions, or like them, but that does not invalidate them.
    Settled law at that time, subject to change in the future as we have seen repeatedly. "Good" decisions need to be written so meticulously that they remain unchallenged in the future, even with a complete change in the leanings of the court. This doesn't happen often, unfortunately. To quote OW Holmes in Buck v Bell "three generations of idiots is enough." One of our greatest jurists. But who now would advocate the sterilization of the mentally retarded outside of Hitler? The Constitution, op cit, always has been a living document, like it or not. Very few parts are sacrosanct.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 11-03-2010 at 05:08 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Settled law at that time, subject to change in the future as we have seen repeatedly. "Good" decisions need to be written so meticulously that they remain unchallenged in the future, even with a complete change in the leanings of the court. This doesn't happen often, unfortunately. To quote OW Holmes in Buck v Bell "three generations of idiots is enough." One of our greatest jurists. But who now would advocate the sterilization of the mentally retarded outside of Hitler? The Constitution, op cit, always has been a living document, like it or not. Very few parts are sacrosanct.
    "Repeatedly?" Not so much. How often has SCOTUS reversed itself?

    Also, other than SCOTUS, who 'negates' or 'reverses' SCOTUS decisions?
    Last edited by wrightme; 11-03-2010 at 05:36 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    "Repeatedly?" Not so much. How often has SCOTUS reversed itself?

    Also, other than SCOTUS, who 'negates' or 'reverses' SCOTUS decisions?
    There have been 17 constitutional amendments passed, some of them in response to SCOTUS decisions. The 11th, the reconstruction amendments, the 16th, 23rd, and 26th amendments are specifically to SCOTUS decisions.

    If a future SCOTUS tries to overturn Heller or McDonald, it'll compete with the 26th amendment with the fastest passage of a constitutional amendment. Guaranteed. If Congress refuses to pass something with 2/3rds vote on both House, a constitutional convention will get called.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •