Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fe...ade the argument,communications, e.g., Reno v.
And yet the court today has no problem with wire taps, search and seizure of on-line data or material stored electronically in private homes etc just so as long as the warrant authorizing those exercises is valid. Again the Supreme Court moves with the times. The 4th Amendment does not protect the digital images collected by pedophiles from being seized and used as evidence at trial.
the search warrant used to seize those images is issued upon probable cause. the feds just don't show up at someone's house and seize their computers.
True. but I was thinking more of the legal complexities around seizing evidence from third parties 'holders' whose location and owners who may not even be in the same country! It gets messy. Point is though that the Constitution was designed to be adaptable. And a good thing to.
and when the entire meaning of a clause is changed-especially to give the government MORE power, it should come from an amendment
So blame the Supreme Court, it's the entity that lets it happen. Beyond that? The idea is unworkable given how hard it is to get amendments approved in the first place. There's only been 27 amendments approved in 247 years! That's an average of what, one every nine years! The idea is a recipe for chaos.
Since 1791 we've had just a net 15 Amendments in 232 years. It will take 38 states to agree to change the way we amend the Constitution.
yeah I guess the left wants to change the amendment whenever the whims of the masses wants. No thanks
I am saying that's more honest than having the clowns like the FDR court pretending that the commerce clause trumps the tenth amendment
Which all goes into the heading titled 'Supreme Court Decisions: Cases I personally disagree with'. Boo-hoo, join the (oh so) long list of citizens who disagree with decisions the Court has made. How dare they!
except the FDR decisions were blatantly political and could not be justified on either the words of the document or precedent.
Yes I know, and that's why I've been pointing out how impracticable it is as a means of passing/approving legislating at the Federal level. However people complaining about 'government overreach' often seemingly ignore the Supreme Court's role in permitting that very same overreach.
The point is the Court appears to be a 'lapdog' when it makes decisions any one individual strongly disagrees with (in this case those relating to the New Deal Proposals) but then becomes a 'hero' when it stands firm on other issues that same person strongly supports like for example gun control. In reality? The court is neither hero or villain, its just doing its job and no rule says each 'new' court must be wedded to the political views of one side of politics or the other - that outcome would not be democracy in action.
actually if you study constitutional law, there are some decisions that are completely contrary to the obvious intent of the constitution and which do not fit the overall fabric. If the Commerce clause really granted the powers to congress that the FDR puppets who wrote WICKARD V FILBURN claimed, there would have not been any real need for most of Article One Section Eight.
Again you need to debate that with another Constitutional lawyer, they might/might not agree with your arguments. But anyhow I'll look at the case sometime out of curiosity.
