- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Oh, so the Constitution of the USA does not give the Supreme Court the authority to interprate the meaning & intent of the Constitutional laws?
That's your interpretation. Others would disagree.
The purpose of the courts is not to be an oligarchy of nine kings who start with the constitution and legislate from there. So no, your understanding of judicial review and mine are not the same. However, when it comes to the fourteenth amendment, it has not been applied by the courts to all of the constitution at this point, which is why the states can have conceal carry laws and the federal government does not. As far as interpreting the 2nd amendment, read it. It's pretty straight forward.
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. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Is that what you got out of that?
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. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
yes, me too.
Americans have the right to keep & bear arms if they are part of the well-regulated militia, which is regulated by the government.
See what I mean? :lol:
If you're talking about America and penile circumcision, you would be mistaken (see below).
Natural law consists of what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong. Where the "Law" walks all over natural law, you will find that the "Law" loses its credibility and enforceability.
Words can get tricky when you read them. :doh
See, THAT is why we have a supreme court, to keep boneheads with political agendas from reading into things like that
The 14th amendment was the one designed to actually make the rest of the constitution supersede state law after the civil war. However, it has only been applied through court cases to portions of the constitution. Again, why some states have restrictive gun laws when the constitution says that the government cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms. If the constitution was the supreme law superseding the states, then no states could have permit or conceal carry laws.
You are confusing the interpretation of the constitution with the legal purview of the constitution. The constitution applies to every states in the country - all parts of it. No law can violate the constitution which makes it supreme. The interpretation of the second amendment however allows states to regulate guns.
no, we have a Supreme Court to interpate the laws of the Constitution when they are in dispute. Like the 2nd Amendment.
No. When the majority feels that certain action should be made legal, they change the law to make it legal. Many laws that people dislike were enforceable - for example the Prohibition.
And if "natural law" is "what the general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" then "natural law" means even less than nothing - which "general populace" are you talking about, from which time? Go to any state in the US, at any decade, and what the "general populace recognizes as innately right or wrong" could be very different.
no, we have a Supreme Court to interpate the laws of the Constitution when they are in dispute. Like the 2nd Amendment.
The only reason the 2nd amendment is in dispute is because liberals with an agenda are seeking a way to override the will of the people and a nine person oligarchy is the best way to accomplish that.
The only reason the 2nd amendment is in dispute is because liberals with an agenda are seeking a way to override the will of the people and a nine person oligarchy is the best way to accomplish that.
Elections are about public opinion -- natural law is about generally recognized taboos and imperatives.
The only reason the 2nd amendment is in dispute is because liberals with an agenda are seeking a way to override the will of the people and a nine person oligarchy is the best way to accomplish that.
When did conservatives start becoming such conspiracy theorists? :lamo
What is your point, friday, and how can you relate it to the topic of the thread?
Which is why we use a representative system, with a constitution that prevents discrimination and guaranteeing basic rights, so as to limit tyranny of the majority.
Which is why we use a representative system, with a constitution that prevents discrimination and guaranteeing basic rights, so as to limit tyranny of the majority.
So I take it, since you haven't responded to me, that you have not read Marbury v. Madison.
The Constitution most certainly did not prevent discrimination or guarantee basic rights for all at its inception, and not for quite some time afterwards. The tyranny of the majority was alive and well for the first 100+ years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?