The Right To Bear Arms

[regent]

What part of Marbury did I get wrong? The law they ruled unconstitutional clearly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which, also clearly, is unconstitutional.

No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.

And we ended up with three branches of government instead of two.

No, originally there were three, but after Marbury the Court had significantly more power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why are you quoting Jefferson? He hardly had anything to do with the final version of the Constitution.

He was in Paris most of the time during its writing.

You're an idiot.

He was in Paris at the time of the Convention, but kept correspondence with James Madison to keep tabs on the proceedings in Philadelphia. He had plenty to do with the Constitution. He helped play a big role in the development of a limited Federal Government. Through his correspondences, he helped define the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.

Establishing A Federal Republic - Thomas Jefferson | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Yes, Jefferson was mentor to Madison and then Madison became Jefferson's Secretary of State. Jefferson created the idea of freedom from liberal government when he wrote the Declaration. When he saw that Washington and the Federalists showed slight liberal tendencies he immediately created the Republican Party and forever destroyed the liberal Federalists! Jefferson called it Second American Revolution!!

Liberal? LIMITED government.

No sir/ma'am. What are you trying to pull?

Jefferson?s Arguments for Nullification and Limited Government ? Tenth Amendment Center

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.

And we ended up with three branches of government instead of two.

No, originally there were three, but after Marbury the Court had significantly more power.

you mean 100 years after Marbury it had more power!!Chief Justice Reinquist was fond of telling us the Marbury was most significant case ever but that it was not used for 100 years after ruling!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does not supprt your claim, and so it proves my point that you are arguing straw.
No one has argued what you said. No one.

You just want to argue semantics like a little teenager.

I'll take that as your acceptance of the fact that you know you cannot support your statement.

This is a lie - The Heller decision did not reverse a single SCotUS decision.
Disagree? Cite them.
Further, you can show no such intent from the people who wrote, debates, or ratified the 2nd,

I've proven my point.

Another lie.
You know you cannot cite the SCotUS decisions overturned by Heller because none exist.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'll take that as your acceptance of the fact that you know you cannot support your statement.

I've proven my point.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it, is not my problem.

Another lie.
You know you cannot cite the SCotUS decisions overturned by Heller because none exist.

You're trying to respond to something I didn't say.

I said 200 years of precedents, not past SCOTUS decisions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll take that as your acceptance of the fact that you know you cannot support your statement.

I've proven my point.

You have not supplied any evidence whatsoever that backs you claim.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this simply illustrares your inteddelctual dishonesty.

Another lie.
You know you cannot cite the SCotUS decisions overturned by Heller because none exist.

You're trying to respond to something I didn't say.
I said 200 years of precedents, not past SCOTUS decisions.

Whenever the SCotUS overturns a case, it necessarily overturns precedent - never mind the fact that the SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts and that in Heller it UPHELD the lower court's decision.
But, I'll take note that you disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent, and that you have no sound argument against Heller

 

[blackhawk]

Joe Biden mistook the right to bear arms to be about people wanting to wear tank tops and muscle shirts as a result he is calling for background checks and a seven day waiting period before you can purchase these types of shirts.

 

[Billo_Really]

You have not supplied any evidence whatsoever that backs you claim.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this simply illustrares your inteddelctual dishonesty.

Yes I have, go back and look!

I provided links to back up my claim.

Whenever the SCotUS overturns a case, it necessarily overturns precedent -

In this case it did, bigtime!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have not supplied any evidence whatsoever that backs you claim.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this simply illustrares your inteddelctual dishonesty.

Yes I have, go back and look!
I provided links to back up my claim.

This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
You have failed to supply that information.

Whenever the SCotUS overturns a case, it necessarily overturns precedent -

In this case it did, bigtime!

Never mind the fact that:
-The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
-In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
-You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
-You have no sound argument against Heller

 

[Billo_Really]

This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
You have failed to supply that information.

Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.

Never mind the fact that:
-The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
-In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
-You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
-You have no sound argument against Heller

The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
You have failed to supply that information.

Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.

Fact is that your evidence does not support what you claimed.

Never mind the fact that:
-The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
-In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
-You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
-You have no sound argument against Heller

The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.

Irrelevant to the point made by the introduction of Heller into the conversation; the facts cited above remian unchallenged.

 

[Spoonman]

This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
You have failed to supply that information.

Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.

Never mind the fact that:
-The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
-In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
-You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
-You have no sound argument against Heller

The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.

the second amendment did

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
You have failed to supply that information.

Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.

Never mind the fact that:
-The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
-In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
-You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
-You have no sound argument against Heller

The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.

the second amendment did

liberals love to pretend its there so people can have fun hunting squirrels, rather than to keep liberals at bay!!

 

[BreezeWood]

The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.

And we ended up with three branches of government instead of two.

No, originally there were three, but after Marbury the Court had significantly more power.

Rather than ‘more’ power, let’s say the Court acknowledged in Marbury its existing authority as a co-equal with regard to the two other branches, where the doctrine of judicial review and the Court’s interpretive authority were already well established:

The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.

By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.

The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
You have failed to supply that information.

Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.

Never mind the fact that:
-The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
-In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
-You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
-You have no sound argument against Heller

The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.

the second amendment did

The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.

Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
Please be sure to include the relevant text from Miller and Heller that supports said argument.

 

[BreezeWood]

The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.

Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
Please be sure to include the relevant text from Miller and Heller that supports said argument.

Amendment [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

you can chose either: A well regulated Militia, or being necessary to the security of a free State, ...


my choice: "being necessary to the security of a free State,"


you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.

The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.

the second amendment did

The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law.

Strange, you just posted an article about how the Constitution is the framework of out law, and you then claim that our law is the framework of the Constitution.

YOU
CANNOT
HAVE
IT
BOTH
WAYS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.

Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
Please be sure to include the relevant text from Miller and Heller that supports said argument.

Amendment [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

you can chose either: A well regulated Militia, or being necessary to the security of a free State, ...


my choice: "being necessary to the security of a free State,"


you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.

How about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."