The writ of habeas corpus is not a fundamental right, it did not exist prior to the establishment of a government body and is not granted by Providence.
---No, it is an affirmation of fundamental rights.
[/QUOTE]
Justice Alito in his brilliant opinion for the court in
McDonald v. Chicago codified the right as fundamental in the eyes of the court. Furthermore, the majority opinion extended the fundamental right to all bodies of government in the United States.
Below I have lifted some quotes from the majority opinion:
"The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty"
[/QUOTE]
“so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”[/QUOTE]
----He is saying that is to be ranked as fundamental because of those two items, I disagree. That because those two items, tradition and conscience, they are therefor fundamental, nope. It extends beyond tradition or consensus. Hopefully he is using them as examples of why it is fundamental.
[/QUOTE]
Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,”[/QUOTE]
----We are not Englishmen.
[/QUOTE]
"The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights"
"Thus, Antifederalists and Federalists alike agreed that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the newly formed system of government." [/QUOTE]
----But what about now, 2010? It was fundamental to the newly formed system of government, we know this. The problem is I read a lot of "was," past tense.
[/QUOTE]This is just a small part of the argument that the right is fundamental. Alito et al were fairly exhaustive in their argument. I know that it is 200+ pages of legalese but if you are up for the challenge, I suggest everyone read the decision, especially the majority opinion (and Justice Thomas concurring opinion is absolutely brilliant as well) it is one of the best rulings I have ever read. Incredibly researched and thorough.
[/QUOTE][/I][/QUOTE]
---Everyone should read it. I have read(e) snippets of the ruling from you, obviously out of context.
It is long. I have been off and on reading it the past little while. I have definitely read(e) the conclusion. I am not trying to be argumentative in this thread or in my response to you. An ideological split is not a mandate on deeming something Constitutionally a fundamental right.
I said at the beginning of this thread that there are fundamental rights, there are fundamental rights affirmed by the Constitution, but by that affirmation, from a Constitutional standpoint it seems that their "conclusion" is not specific enough to deem the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right, since your "rights" can be suspended temporarily under Article I, which they did not reference in the ruling as far as I have read(e).
The problem is likely me I suppose. I see in the Constitution the ability of the Federal Government to suspend TWOHC, anything after that have become a privilege, regardless of the intent of the Constitution being an affirmation of fundamental rights. Rights can not be taken away, privileges are given and taken away. If there was a huge bump that the writers of the Constitution wrote in the Constitution, this is one of them. Just because I have this view, does not mean that I agree with it. I am sure there are plenty of people that see some valuable integrity of agreeing with your personal views, that just isn't always the case with me.