M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
- May 26, 2011
- 4,123
- 931
Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!
Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.
How did he interpret it in his own way in Heller, given that the right to keep and bear arms most certainly is an individual right, which, now, beyond all doubt, as if there ever were any, and there wasn't, cannot be denied by any of the several states either in the face of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)? The latter rested primarily on Heller and Miller, but that has always been understood as there can be no militia if the several states or any of their municipalities can bar the people thereof to keep and bear arms for purposes of the common defense. Obviously, the militia of the Second Amendment cannot be the National Guard or the military of the United States.
LOL!
How obviously stupid and wrong was the contention of the leftist thugs of Chicago?
Answer: As obviously stupid and wrong as a box of rocks.
The intent of the 2nd Amendment is unmistakable. Further, it's intent and purpose is clearly spelled out in the Federalist Papers, the voluminous testimony of the Founders apart from the Federalist Papers, and the stare decisis of the case law that preceded Heller and Chicago: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
The only sense in which Heller was a landmark decision was that it emphatically affirmed what has always been understood, what has always been necessarily true, contrary to what nincompoops tried to assert out of thin air in the face of the Republic's historically monolithic avalanche of political and legal testimony. Hence, the Court informed the corrupt Democratic political machine of Chicago that it was not entitled to interpret the Constitution in its own and undeniably new way after all.
As for Citizens United, if corporations are not individuals relative to the protections of the First Amendment than in what sense is any other body of citizens united in a common cause or enterprise not the muzzled or slavish mouthpieces of the state, you Marxist slug? In what sense is the First Amendment not rendered meaningless by such living-document bullshit?
_____________________________________________________
EDIT: had Miller in the wrong place in one sentence when I meant Chicago.
Last edited: