The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[Little-Acorn]

Time to get off the liberal change-the-subject-and-insult-normal-people merry-go-round, and back to the subject of the thread.

------------------------------------------------

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[Contumacious]

We do not expect to get all gun regulation repealed.

Actually , we believe it will worsen when President Clinton appoints another fascist to SCOTUS.

The new majority will conclude that Heller was wrongly decided, that Americans do not have a right to carry sling shots , let alone firearms.


Our only hope are the Mexican drug Cartels - the blackmarket.

Your use of "fascist" as a pejorative is both foolish and misguided and typically lacks substance, i.e., examples.

If this is the case, how did the constitution exist when the delegates wrote it at the constitutional convention? How did the constitution exist when it was sent to the states for ratification?

The Magna Carta, Natural Law and the English Common Law all existed well before there was a US, and were considered by those learned men who participated in the writing of COTUS.

No, I use the word fascist as intended by Benito Mussolini


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


So here FASCIST state bureaucrats have concluded that the right to defend our lives is NOT a right unless THEY recognize it as such.


BULLSHIT.

Yes, bullshit describes your content. Both the common law and the penal codes of the several states recognize the right of self defense. The crazy right wing, which includes the gun nuts, obviously, has created a whole new concept - "stand your ground". A fitting concept for the Walter Mitty's whose fantasy is to become a hero and kill someone. Be honest, how many times before you all asleep do yoou imagine yourself with a hero button provided by the citizens of your community, after killing someone engaged in a crime, and not a capital crime at that? Do you envy Zimmerman? How did that work out for him?

REPEATING

No, I use the word fascist as intended by Benito Mussolini


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


So here FASCIST state bureaucrats have concluded that the right to defend our lives is NOT a right unless THEY recognize it as such.


BULLSHIT.

Reality in terms of laws and court decisions proves you're wrong. What may have been true in the 30's in Italy has nothing to do with the US and our system of jurisprudence in the 21st Century.

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended


We hold these truths to be self-evident,


that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-


Goddamned federal judges and federal bureaucrats are NOT our creator.


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended.

Correct.

Just ignored and violated.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

Where is that written in the Constitution? They were powerful words thrown in the face of a King and his tyrannical government in the actions to sever our former bonds, but that was their singular distinction.

You hypocritical "Absolutists" continually point out that only that which is written in the Constitution is lawful and is not subject to interpretation or review by any authority! But NOW you are making an exception in a pleading a higher Authority, yet the genesis you claim for that authority cannot be found within the Constitution! Is their no level of specious and duplicitous conduct your faction will not reduce yourselves?

 

[Centinel]

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

Where is that written in the Constitution? They were powerful words thrown in the face of a King and his tyrannical government in the actions to sever our former bonds, but that was their singular distinction.

You hypocritical "Absolutists" continually point out that only that which is written in the Constitution is lawful and is not subject to interpretation or review by any authority! But NOW you are making an exception in a pleading a higher Authority, yet the genesis you claim for that authority cannot be found within the Constitution! Is their no level of specious and duplicitous conduct your faction will not reduce yourselves?

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in article I, section 8 of the constitution. There is no power listed therein to ban or restrict the possession of firearms by the people.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

Where is that written in the Constitution? They were powerful words thrown in the face of a King and his tyrannical government in the actions to sever our former bonds, but that was their singular distinction.

You hypocritical "Absolutists" continually point out that only that which is written in the Constitution is lawful and is not subject to interpretation or review by any authority! But NOW you are making an exception in a pleading a higher Authority, yet the genesis you claim for that authority cannot be found within the Constitution! Is their no level of specious and duplicitous conduct your faction will not reduce yourselves?

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in article I, section 8 of the constitution. There is no power listed therein to ban or restrict the possession of firearms by the people.

Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!

 

[Contumacious]

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

Where is that written in the Constitution? They were powerful words thrown in the face of a King and his tyrannical government in the actions to sever our former bonds, but that was their singular distinction.

You hypocritical "Absolutists" continually point out that only that which is written in the Constitution is lawful and is not subject to interpretation or review by any authority! But NOW you are making an exception in a pleading a higher Authority, yet the genesis you claim for that authority cannot be found within the Constitution! Is their no level of specious and duplicitous conduct your faction will not reduce yourselves?

OMG

Where do these fucktards come from?

Old navy vet? In the Cuban Navy, I take it.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

Where is that written in the Constitution? They were powerful words thrown in the face of a King and his tyrannical government in the actions to sever our former bonds, but that was their singular distinction.

You hypocritical "Absolutists" continually point out that only that which is written in the Constitution is lawful and is not subject to interpretation or review by any authority! But NOW you are making an exception in a pleading a higher Authority, yet the genesis you claim for that authority cannot be found within the Constitution! Is their no level of specious and duplicitous conduct your faction will not reduce yourselves?

OMG

Where do these fucktards come from?

Old navy vet? In the Cuban Navy, I take it.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

District of Columbia v. Heller made your highlighted portion of Cruikshank MOOT!

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., ....Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26 [Emphasis Added] ~~https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html~~

 

[Centinel]

Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!

When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!

When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

 

[Centinel]

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The judicial branch doesn't have the authority to enact legislation. All legislative authority resides with the congress. And the states never gave congress legislative authority to restrict or prohibit the possession of arms.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The judicial branch doesn't have the authority to enact legislation. All legislative authority resides with the congress. And the states never gave congress legislative authority to restrict or prohibit the possession of arms.

You are ignorant of the actual purpose of the checks and balances on each branch of government under the authority of the Constitution by their respective co-equal branches, but especially the power of Judicial Review. That ignorance can be diminished through edifying yourself in matters of HS Civics...well at least what those of us that went through those classes and learned 50+ years ago.

 

[Contumacious]

Shut the fuck up , our rights have not been amended


We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

Where is that written in the Constitution? They were powerful words thrown in the face of a King and his tyrannical government in the actions to sever our former bonds, but that was their singular distinction.

You hypocritical "Absolutists" continually point out that only that which is written in the Constitution is lawful and is not subject to interpretation or review by any authority! But NOW you are making an exception in a pleading a higher Authority, yet the genesis you claim for that authority cannot be found within the Constitution! Is their no level of specious and duplicitous conduct your faction will not reduce yourselves?

OMG

Where do these fucktards come from?

Old navy vet? In the Cuban Navy, I take it.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln,11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

District of Columbia v. Heller made your highlighted portion of Cruikshank MOOT!

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., ....Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26 [Emphasis Added] ~~https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html~~

Thank you for reminding me that SCOTUS is now determined to slowly eliminate our right to life and to defend the same.


Now let me remind you that Americans will use the blackmarket if push comes to shove.

In some Jurisdictions black MEXICAN HEROIN is an epidemic.

Soon , so will "assault" rifles and high capacity magazines.

LONG LIVE THE BLACKMARKET.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!

When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The dingle berries never cease to amaze.

Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.

The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!

When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The dingle berries never cease to amaze.

Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.

The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.

The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!

 

[Contumacious]

Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!

When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The dingle berries never cease to amaze.

Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.

The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.

The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!

Cum swallower son of a bitch.


Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?


I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.


.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!

When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The dingle berries never cease to amaze.

Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.

The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.

The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!

Cum swallower son of a bitch.


Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?


I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.


.

I haven't spoken, heard or read some of those words since I was in junior high over 55 years ago. What grade are you in and why are you posting on this board, kid? Someone needs to smack your young ass for talking to adults like that.

 

[Contumacious]

When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The dingle berries never cease to amaze.

Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.

The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.

The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!

Cum swallower son of a bitch.


Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?


I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.


.

I haven't spoken, heard or read some of those words since I was in junior high over 55 years ago. What grade are you in and why are you posting on this board, kid? Someone needs to smack your young ass for talking to adults like that.

Cum swallower son of a bitch.


Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?


I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.




"Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution's text. See, e.g., 1 Annals of Cong. 431-432, 436--437, 440--442 (1834) (statement of Rep. Madison) (proposing Bill of Rights in the first Congress); The Federalist No. 84, pp. 531-533 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); see also Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) ("t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right"). The Court's subsequent decision in Barron, however, made plain that the codification of these rights in the Bill made them legally enforceable only against the Federal Government, not the States. See 7 Pet., at 247."

United States Supreme Court
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL., (2010)
No. 08-1521

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.

Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!

The dingle berries never cease to amaze.

Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.

The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.

The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!

Cum swallower son of a bitch.


Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?


I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.


.

I haven't spoken, heard or read some of those words since I was in junior high over 55 years ago. What grade are you in and why are you posting on this board, kid? Someone needs to smack your young ass for talking to adults like that.

Cum swallower son of a bitch.


Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?


I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.




"Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution's text. See, e.g., 1 Annals of Cong. 431-432, 436--437, 440--442 (1834) (statement of Rep. Madison) (proposing Bill of Rights in the first Congress); The Federalist No. 84, pp. 531-533 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); see also Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) ("t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right"). The Court's subsequent decision in Barron, however, made plain that the codification of these rights in the Bill made them legally enforceable only against the Federal Government, not the States. See 7 Pet., at 247."

United States Supreme Court
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL., (2010)
No. 08-1521

More of your Jr. High drivel. Some folks just can't get here from there, I guess!

Regarding your citation with the broken link:
That was written by Justice Thomas in his CONCURRENCE with the Court's (Scalia) DECISION in the case. Even if it were relevant to the decision, the passage is merely a recounting of history and in no wise reflects upon the DECISION per se. It too is MOOT!

Whatcha gonna throw on the wall to see if it sticks next lad? You really should give it up and I getting tired of your ignorance and tutelage.

 

[Centinel]

You are ignorant of the actual purpose of the checks and balances on each branch of government under the authority of the Constitution by their respective co-equal branches, but especially the power of Judicial Review. That ignorance can be diminished through edifying yourself in matters of HS Civics...well at least what those of us that went through those classes and learned 50+ years ago.

You understand that the states didn't grant congress plenary legislative power, right? You understand that congress's legislative powers are limited, and that its specific powers are listed in art I, section 8. You know this, right?