- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: High court strikes down gun ban
I love arguments like this.
Here's the difference between a strict constructionist and an "activist".
A strict constructionist would be looking at the second amendment.
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clear as day. There's no creating that verbage out of thin air, its present.
NOW
I will likely break from my fellow conservatives here. I believe a strict constructionist could ALSO take it as only allowing regulated militias to keep arms, as that's taking a reading an interpritation from the amendments ACTUAL WORDS.
But the whole key with strict constructionism is the general belief that what is said is what is meant. What is spelled out is what is present. No more, no less.
In regards to activists...
Show me a place in the consitution it speaks of Marriage? Show me a part of the constitution that speaks about birthing or abortion. These are issues where judges have taken something in the consitution, then taken other sources, then come to their own decision of how it should be.
THAT is Judicial activism. Saying "I think this statement here SHOULD apply to this, even though the wording and intent at the time had nothing to do with it."
How some people on the left are trying to state that reading the actual words of the constitution, making a decision based on those word, on something that has to do specifically those words is "judicial activism".
Overturning laws based on the constitution, even long standing ones, is not judicial activism. Taking portions of the consitution, and applying them to things that have no bearing and have no mention towards them or something distinctly similiar to them, IS judicial activism.
Hautey, you want to state that people are deciding on what's "activism" or not in a judicial sense based on what they do or don't agree with. I've outlined here completely what my view of what activisim is, how some of those you mentioned fit it, and how this decision doesn't. So how about you do the same and explain why you think this is Judicial Activism in the same sense as some of the other things. OR, are you just enjoying to stir the pot and call out without actually putting any facts, thought, or debate behind it on this issue? I don't know that to normally be your style, so I'll be enjoying to see how you can compare these two things.
Like giving people rights, abortion, gay marriage etc etc.
I love arguments like this.
Here's the difference between a strict constructionist and an "activist".
A strict constructionist would be looking at the second amendment.
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clear as day. There's no creating that verbage out of thin air, its present.
NOW
I will likely break from my fellow conservatives here. I believe a strict constructionist could ALSO take it as only allowing regulated militias to keep arms, as that's taking a reading an interpritation from the amendments ACTUAL WORDS.
But the whole key with strict constructionism is the general belief that what is said is what is meant. What is spelled out is what is present. No more, no less.
In regards to activists...
Show me a place in the consitution it speaks of Marriage? Show me a part of the constitution that speaks about birthing or abortion. These are issues where judges have taken something in the consitution, then taken other sources, then come to their own decision of how it should be.
THAT is Judicial activism. Saying "I think this statement here SHOULD apply to this, even though the wording and intent at the time had nothing to do with it."
How some people on the left are trying to state that reading the actual words of the constitution, making a decision based on those word, on something that has to do specifically those words is "judicial activism".
Overturning laws based on the constitution, even long standing ones, is not judicial activism. Taking portions of the consitution, and applying them to things that have no bearing and have no mention towards them or something distinctly similiar to them, IS judicial activism.
Hautey, you want to state that people are deciding on what's "activism" or not in a judicial sense based on what they do or don't agree with. I've outlined here completely what my view of what activisim is, how some of those you mentioned fit it, and how this decision doesn't. So how about you do the same and explain why you think this is Judicial Activism in the same sense as some of the other things. OR, are you just enjoying to stir the pot and call out without actually putting any facts, thought, or debate behind it on this issue? I don't know that to normally be your style, so I'll be enjoying to see how you can compare these two things.
Last edited: