Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Zorro, Sep 9, 2023.
I'm saying I agree with them more than conservatives.
^ A scholarly article a friend of mine wrote for law review years and years ago. Gun control is racist, it always disparately impacts ethnic minorities.
^ Article with link through to separate more recent study that finds gun control and incidences of lynching are tied.
I routed you to a case which directly addresses the argument you have made and sets the test which your examples do not pass.
It explains the reasoning as well. If you want to argue, argue against the direct reasoning in the case. Show me you've actually read it and are therefore worthy of a full discussion rather than a casual reference for my amusement. Previously? You've never taken me up on that. READ FIRST, DEMONSTRATE YOU HAVE, and we can get further into it.
Read Bruen and tell me your argument isn't addressed.
You want to have an opinion, read the ****ing text. You don't have to be a lawyer to read the decisions. You don't have to be a lawyer to find them when I TELL YOU WHAT CASE.
Get on google and read Bruen. I'm not discussing anything with you until you've actually got an informed opinion.
I'm afraid my law license will be quite operational despite your disbelief. And you STILL haven't read Bruen.
Mid to late 19th is not the test.
If you want to change the 2a, either to repeal or alter, see Art V. Now count the states you'd need for that. Now count the states with permitless carry. Seeing the problem yet? Tell the class what the problem is so we know you actually understand and actually did the math. Go on.
Let's put it this way, the debate over 'individual right; versus 'collective right' wasn't settled until Heller.
History is replete with municipalities banning the carry of handguns within city limits, and no one whined about the second amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger once said, "The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
He also stated that “the real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies, the militia, would be maintained for the defense of the state” and “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.” These quotes come from an article Burger wrote for The Associated Press about the Bill of Rights in 1991.
Moreover, Heller was decided on a 5/4 vote,. and since the conservatives had five members, and liberals only 4, Heller is now law.
when something has historical as Heller comes along, and it's voted on by strict party lines, it's power as a precedent is very weak.
Repealing 2A is not realistic. but, since Heller was decided 5/4, in favor of conservatives, I believe if we ever get a liberal court, it can be repealed.
Tell the class **** off.
My reply to your points:
Lack of Congressional Power to Regulate Arms:
Historical Context: The argument that there was no congressional power given to regulate arms is a strict originalist interpretation. However, the Constitution is a living document, and its interpretation has evolved over time. The Commerce Clause, for instance, has been used to justify a wide range of federal regulations, including those related to firearms.
Practical Implications: If one were to strictly adhere to the idea that Congress has no power to regulate arms, it could lead to a situation where there is a patchwork of state laws with no federal oversight. This could result in significant challenges in enforcing gun laws and ensuring public safety.
Precedent: The Supreme Court has upheld certain federal regulations on firearms in the past, suggesting that there is, in fact, some congressional power in this area.
Application of the Rational Basis Test:
Consistency in Application: Your rebuttal suggests that the rational basis test has been rejected for other fundamental rights and thus should not be applied to the Second Amendment. However, the level of scrutiny applied to a particular right can vary based on the context and the nature of the right. Just because a particular test is rejected in one context doesn't mean it's inappropriate in another.
Nature of the Right: The Second Amendment, like all rights, is not absolute. There are always limits to rights, especially when public safety is at stake. The rational basis test, which asks whether a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, is a relatively low bar. If a gun regulation can't meet this standard, it's likely not a reasonable regulation.
Precedent: The Supreme Court has applied various levels of scrutiny to Second Amendment cases in the past. It's not out of the question for a justice to argue for a different level of scrutiny based on their interpretation of the right and the case at hand.
While your rebuttal raises valid concerns about Justice Breyer's dissent, it can be critiqued on the grounds of historical context, practical implications, and legal precedent. It's essential to consider the broader implications and the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation when evaluating such arguments.
the living document nonsense is an affront to the founders, constitutional law and the amendment process. It is a standard refuge of lefties who want to change the constitution but know they cannot get enough support to amend it.
I tire of statists constantly pretending that the "rights are not without limitations" is default position rather than the real default position-the government is limited to powers actually give it. You all ignore the fact that lefties can create an unlimited right to an abortion out of thin air while pretending the right to arms is as limited as they can make it
what Warren Burger opined after he left the court-on a subject he never penned an opinion about, nor presented a scholarly article on, is a joke given he was widely -and correctly-lampooned as one of the most intellectually wanting supreme court justices in modern history. He wasn't a top scholar at a top law school-he didn't even attend a school ranked in the top 50. He was essentially a political hack who became more and more statist as his brain eroded. You continually error by claiming Heller was strict party lines when Stevens was a GOP appointee. Republicans have been on both sides of the issue-wrong in a few cases, right in most, while EVERY DEMOCRAT JUSTICE has voted against the second amendment in EVERY SUPREME COURT CASE SINCE MILLER
Sorry, you talk in generalities.
Part of your legal argument refers to the declaration of independence as if it grants rights.
Okay, what part?
Then you wrote:
This is indicative of someone who has no idea how it works, because learning that is really 101 style information.
Now you are employing a pseudo debate trick called posturing, which is the false attempt to gain advantage in a debate by condescension.
Until you can be specific, tell me, specifically, what your disagreement is, and what line chapter and page supports your premise, your argument,. or lack thereof, is dismissed.
I sure as hell am not going to make YOUR ARGUMENT FOR YOU
That is not how it works.
You are not a lawyer because I sure as hell am not taking your word for it.
The idea of the Constitution as a ‘living document’ is not an affront to the founders, constitutional law, or the amendment process. It’s a perspective that allows the Constitution to be interpreted in light of changing societal norms and values. The founders themselves knew that they couldn’t foresee all future circumstances, which is why they included an amendment process in the Constitution. However, this process is intentionally difficult to ensure stability and continuity.
The assertion that the ‘living document’ interpretation is a refuge for those who want to change the Constitution without amending it is not entirely accurate. It’s more about interpreting the Constitution in a way that reflects our evolving understanding of rights and liberties. Judicial review is often about interpretation (on parts that are generalized or vague, requiring it).
As for the argument about rights and limitations, it’s important to remember that all rights have limitations to ensure they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. This includes both the right to an abortion (derived from the penumbra right of privacy, and no, the repealed Roe did not give an 'unlimited right to abortion' nor do we believe any right to abortion is unlimited. If there is a state legislation that offends you, Democrats do not declare it unlimited, which would mean it would not be subject to judicial review, which is absurd, and thus your claim, is therefore, nonsense) and the right to bear arms. The extent of these limitations is often a matter of debate and interpretation, which is why we have courts to adjudicate these issues.
OK 95%% and when it comes to gun banners-completely true.
and I really continue to laugh at the facade the gun banners erect concerning public safety.
While it’s true that Warren Burger was not a top scholar at a top law school, he did graduate with honors from St. Paul College of Law in 1931
Your attempt to diminish Chief Justice Burger is rejected, noting the following:
It's important to note that Burger brought a common sense approach to his decisions. He was a strong advocate for the Court and sought to improve the administration of the federal judiciary. Burger presided over the high court for 17 years and took a very active role in bolstering the United States federal court system3 The “Burger Court” dealt with everything from abortion to capital punishment to pornography, and it most likely ended Richard Nixon’s stay in the White House in 1974 The New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse noted that the Burger Court had a complicated legacy. “It was a central contradiction of Mr. Burger’s tenure as Chief Justice that long after he became one of the most visible and, in many ways, innovative Chief Justices in history he remained, for many people, the symbol of retrenchment that Mr. Nixon had presented to the public on nominating him,” Greenhouse wrote. So, while there were critics of his intellectual rigor, his tenure as Chief Justice was marked by significant decisions and contributions to the Court. It’s also worth noting that intellectual rigor is just one aspect of a justice’s capabilities, and different justices may excel in different areas.
....allow me to point out that he then joined a prominent St. Paul law firm and gradually became active in Republican Party politics. In 1953, he was appointed an assistant U.S. attorney general, and in 1955 he was nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. His approach during his 13-year service on the nation’s second highest court led to his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1969.
As for Justice John Paul Stevens, while he was indeed appointed by a Republican president (Gerald Ford), his political affiliation was with the Republican Party
However, over time, Stevens’ views evolved and he often sided with the more liberal justices on the court. This is not uncommon as justices may evolve in their judicial philosophy over time.
Regarding the Heller decision, it’s important to note that Supreme Court decisions are not determined by party lines but by the interpretation of the Constitution by the justices. The fact that it was a 5-4 decision does highlight that there was significant disagreement among the justices about the interpretation of the Second Amendment in this case.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that while every Democratic justice has voted against what some might consider an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment, this does not mean they voted “against” the Second Amendment itself. Rather, they disagreed with a particular interpretation of it, which is the accurate distinction you apparently have failed to make.
The Second Amendment, like all parts of the Constitution, is subject to interpretation and these interpretations can vary widely among both legal scholars and justices. On SCOTUS, there is no 'for, nor against', there is only 'interpretation', (unless a future court repeals a right granted, which is what happened in Dobbs).
the left lampooned that guy for years noting he was a political hack and not a scholar (which was true). his opinion on the second amendment was pretty much thrashed by dozens of scholars and was nothing more than an attempt by a has been to ingratiate himself with groups he hoped would elevate their opinions of his poor legacy. and his silly article on the second amendment was atrocious in terms of scholarship. He never did explain why the commerce clause actually gave the government powers that the founders never intended, and why that New Deal statism was justified.
There is a gaping hole in your logic.
The only persons allowed to interpret the constitution and thus rule on it (which is to say, being the final word on what it says or doesn't say), are justices of the Supreme Court.
Given that I do not recall any 'gun-banners' in the Supreme Court, and your premise rides on that inaccuracy, your contention is therefore false.
You're just repeating yourself.
wrong again-only the supreme court's interpretation is binding but any one can interpret it. And top commentators do all the time-one of the reasons for Heller was that the tide of legal scholarship-starting with articles by Kates and Sanford Levinson's 1989 "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" published in the highly regarded U of Texas Law review-was squarely behind the individual rights interpretation. Stevens was a hard core gun banner as was Breyer. They supported the DC gun ban as did the other two dissenters. So your argument contains two errors right there
Yes, some people don't get obvious points the first time they are made
The only interpretation that matters is that of the supreme court.
Show me the quote by Breyer or Stevens where they advocate banning guns?
last time I checked, there are no gun banners on the courts.
The DC 'gun ban' is a misnomer, rifles were allowed so it's not really a gun ban, What it was before Heller was GUN CONTROL. Limit some, allow others. That's gun control not a gun ban.
A gun ban would have ban ALL guns.
No one is advocating that.
Now you're dreaming.
You actually have to put forth an argument, and repeating the same vacuous drivel/non argument is repeating the same vacuous drivel/ non argument.
You made cheap shot accusations of a former Chief Justice,whose accomplishments vastly exceed some turtledude ranting on the internet, and you did it without foundation, and that fact that you traffic in that kind of language destroys your credibility.
You are dismissed.
Uh if you want to uphold a gun banning law, you support banning guns and claiming that you are not a gun banner if you (currently) want to ban only 60% of guns is as silly as saying someone isn't a genocidal maniac if they only want to wipe out one race
you lionized a low wattage former chief justice because you like his lame opinion on the second amendment. And if you want to compare accomplishments-why don't you compare YOUR accomplishments in legal scholarship with mine? Scalia is far far more esteemed as a legal scholar than Burger, Stevens or Breyer so if you want to play that game you also will lose
For those who actually give credence to Burger's bullshit
Separate names with a comma.