- Joined
- Jul 28, 2024
- Messages
- 2,565
- Reaction score
- 3,008
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
We’ll begin with the easy one. Birthright Citizenship. That’s what the Amendment says. What part of Any Person is hard to understand?
The harder one. Judges ability to issue an Order that has effect Nationally. Or everywhere if you prefer. That is actually the smarter rule. The idea that Every District should be judged within that district, and only for that district is the recipe for Chaos. Let’s say that the Next President is a Democrat. This Democrat orders all weapons to be turned in. The NRA and other Gun Rights groups would have to file a motion in literally every single district across the nation to put a stop to the obviously unconstitutional order. Then it would be up to that Judge to overturn the orders of the President, or not. So a Judge in Georgia says no, the order is Valid. Now, they have to run to every single Appeals court and get a dozen different rulings. In the meantime, people are going to jail because the Judge had said that it was legal. Weapons are being melted down because the Judge said it was Legal.
The idea that one Judge can issue a proper order that affects everyone when there is a rule or law that is obviously unconstitutional is a good one. This allows one Judge to hear the arguments and make a decision. That decision can be appealed, and one Appeals Court is going to hear it. If you still don’t like the answer you can still send it to the Supremes.
Chief Justice Robert’s seemed to suggest that it could be handled better as a Class Action Lawsuit. Those are the worst ways to deal with an issue. First, you have to identify multiple victims. It should not require that. You should be able to stop an unconstitutional action with not even one victim. If the notional Democrat above issued the order to collect all weapons right away, we shouldn’t need to identify fifty or more people who lost their Second Amendment Rights before we get a Judge to say no. We shouldn’t need affidavits from fifty people about their Rights being violated. We should be able to say hey, this is illegal. Stop it.
One Judge issuing an order is the best way. That Judge seeing the arguments can issue an order telling the Government that they can’t collect those weapons and they can’t prosecute anyone for it. That is what is supposed to happen. When the Government tries to do something Unconstitutional, the Courts are supposed to say No!
Those who say that this makes Judges unelected Kings are full of manure. Something obviously unconstitutional should be stopped immediately and not just in this district or that one. Everywhere. Do you really want to leave your rights up to the whim of some Judge who happens to be local? A Republican in New York might say no, and a Democrat in Texas might say yes. Think about that. One Judge, One Order, and One path of appeals. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than demanding a hundred motions before a hundred judges to affect all the districts doesn’t it?
The harder one. Judges ability to issue an Order that has effect Nationally. Or everywhere if you prefer. That is actually the smarter rule. The idea that Every District should be judged within that district, and only for that district is the recipe for Chaos. Let’s say that the Next President is a Democrat. This Democrat orders all weapons to be turned in. The NRA and other Gun Rights groups would have to file a motion in literally every single district across the nation to put a stop to the obviously unconstitutional order. Then it would be up to that Judge to overturn the orders of the President, or not. So a Judge in Georgia says no, the order is Valid. Now, they have to run to every single Appeals court and get a dozen different rulings. In the meantime, people are going to jail because the Judge had said that it was legal. Weapons are being melted down because the Judge said it was Legal.
The idea that one Judge can issue a proper order that affects everyone when there is a rule or law that is obviously unconstitutional is a good one. This allows one Judge to hear the arguments and make a decision. That decision can be appealed, and one Appeals Court is going to hear it. If you still don’t like the answer you can still send it to the Supremes.
Chief Justice Robert’s seemed to suggest that it could be handled better as a Class Action Lawsuit. Those are the worst ways to deal with an issue. First, you have to identify multiple victims. It should not require that. You should be able to stop an unconstitutional action with not even one victim. If the notional Democrat above issued the order to collect all weapons right away, we shouldn’t need to identify fifty or more people who lost their Second Amendment Rights before we get a Judge to say no. We shouldn’t need affidavits from fifty people about their Rights being violated. We should be able to say hey, this is illegal. Stop it.
One Judge issuing an order is the best way. That Judge seeing the arguments can issue an order telling the Government that they can’t collect those weapons and they can’t prosecute anyone for it. That is what is supposed to happen. When the Government tries to do something Unconstitutional, the Courts are supposed to say No!
Those who say that this makes Judges unelected Kings are full of manure. Something obviously unconstitutional should be stopped immediately and not just in this district or that one. Everywhere. Do you really want to leave your rights up to the whim of some Judge who happens to be local? A Republican in New York might say no, and a Democrat in Texas might say yes. Think about that. One Judge, One Order, and One path of appeals. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than demanding a hundred motions before a hundred judges to affect all the districts doesn’t it?
