There are two ways to keep the court to 9 justices:
1. Trump wins the election
2. The Republicans hold the Senate
So, either way the court will be safe for a while.
I feel pretty good about that.
There are two ways to keep the court to 9 justices:
1. Trump wins the election
2. The Republicans hold the Senate
So, either way the court will be safe for a while.
I feel pretty good about that.
With liberty and justice for all...must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.
That's a Heller good question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
There's a third way, a Constitutional amendment. Maybe throw in 18-year terms so that a new justice gets appointed at least every 2 years and neither side has to worry as much about the life expectancy of octogenarians. I don't see enough Dems in Congress and the Senate agreeing to it to meet the 2/3rds supermajority requirement though.
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
One of the rules of interpreting statutes, constitutions, and contracts, is that words have consistent meanings. If a statute, constitution, or contract uses a word or phrase (e.g., "the people") in more than one location, then the word or phrase should mean the same thing in all of the locations. This is a long standing rule and the Founders were familiar with it.
The phrase, "the people" is used more than once in the Bill of Rights. Thus:
"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment)
"the right of the people to peaceably assemble" (1st Amendment)
There is no doubt that the right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects is an individual right. Similarly, the right to peaceably assemble is an individual right.
And, because the phrase "the people" is used multiple times to refer to an individual right in the 1st and 4th Amendments, it is highly likely the Founders intended the phrase "the people" to reference an individual right in the 2d Amendment as well.
In addition, the RKBA pre-existed the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was ratified, the English had an individual RKBA.
I recommend reading Heller v. D.C. Justice Scalia wrote a clear opinion that addressed these issues in greater depth than I attempt here.
I would enjoy point/counterpoint with you over the next few weeks as I believe we would find much to agree and disagree on and that makes life interesting, but it should be in private messages as I don't wish this thread to be dumped in the romper room, so I will bow out here. Having been all over this great big world we certainly have a fundamental difference in opinions and that is ok. Regardless of our own opinions I have zero trust in the system as it currently stands to move forward in the way it was intended. RBG is gone and that as a Scotus is in my opinion a very good thing. What comes of all this remains to be seen but I will believe the possible good of it, only if and when the actions of those involved prove it to be so. Until then color me skeptical.
A reasonably brief rebuttal to Ginsburg's argument (based on prior case law) is as follows...
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms pre-existed the Constitution and in that case and in Presser v. Illinois (1886) recognized that the Second Amendment protected the right from being infringed by Congress. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court again recognized that the right to arms is individually held and, citing the Tennessee case of Aymette v. State, indicated that it protected the right to keep and bear arms that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" or the use of which could "contribute to the common defense."
I suspect that the latter cited case law (Amyette v. State) is at least part of the basis of the majority's holding in which firearms in common usage are protected as a class.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
True. They can do that if they want. Just like Harry Reid got the dem senate to change the requirement to pass legislation to a majority (51) vote. That wasn't such a hot idea either. But like you say, it's all perfectly within the rules. Personally I don't think another conservative SC justice is a bad thing. If they do their job nobody should have anything to worry about. I'll just wait for the election and see how all of this unfolds. I'm probably a down ticket voter again this election anyway.
Last edited by Borderland; 09-23-2020 at 08:53 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Read Barrett's dissent in Kanter:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:2309276:S:0.
There are a number of cases that could be before the Court next term.
I'm woefully underqualified to present the finer points of case law and precedent. But the lay argument I use (shamelessly stolen from the internet) to clarify the language for people is this:
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."
Who has the right to food? A well balanced breakfast or the people?