Yes - the plain English interpretation of the 2nd.
Not sure I agree there. The Amendment is written pretty well, IMO. I once read a piece where several grammar experts verified that the grammar was consistent with the plain meaning and general understanding of the 2nd, as unequivocally about the rights of the individual America to own and bear arms, as not only a right of self defense, and of defense of one's nation, but in also defense against ones government propensity for tyranny.
I'll see if I can dig it up for you.
Tim-
I notice that he doesn't really say anything about whether or not a law's constitutionality has anything to do with it.You can't see it on its face? Wow.
I'll type slowly and use small words.
Breyer argues that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.
The court, in CA Prop 8, did exactly that - overturned the will of the people.
Roe v Wade did just that - overturned the will of the people.
To be consistent, Breyer would oppose the court's actions re: CA Prop 8 and Roe v Wade, because he believes that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.
I'm sorry -- I showed the inconsistency.I notice that he doesn't really say anything about whether or not a law's constitutionality has anything to do with it.
Not sure I agree there. The Amendment is written pretty well, IMO. I once read a piece where several grammar experts verified that the grammar was consistent with the plain meaning and general understanding of the 2nd, as unequivocally about the rights of the individual America to own and bear arms, as not only a right of self defense, and of defense of one's nation, but in also defense against ones government propensity for tyranny.
I'll see if I can dig it up for you.
Tim-
Fair enough.. However, notwithstanding the grammar side of things, the Federlaist papers, notes and letters of the time convince me personally that the rights in the 2nd were individual. But maybe this is better for another thread?
Tim-
You gave me a nice, clear, and incomplete picture devoid of any context.I'm sorry -- I showed the inconsistency.
You're supposed to now show how I am wrong.
There's that willful ignorance again.You gave me a nice, clear, and incomplete picture devoid of any context.
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?