Why not remove the federal court's juridiction over the 2nd Amendment?

[ogibillm]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

intrinsic rights are a lie. you have no rights but those which you can exercise.

 

[FA_Q2]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

intrinsic rights are a lie. you have no rights but those which you can exercise.

And you utterly misunderstand what rights are.

You also misunderstand how that directly effects government and its ability to dominate its populace.

 

[ogibillm]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

intrinsic rights are a lie. you have no rights but those which you can exercise.

And you utterly misunderstand what rights are.

You also misunderstand how that directly effects government and its ability to dominate its populace.

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

 

[Chuz Life]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

intrinsic rights are a lie. you have no rights but those which you can exercise.

And you utterly misunderstand what rights are.

You also misunderstand how that directly effects government and its ability to dominate its populace.

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

 

[ogibillm]

What drives me nuts is that everyone (it seems) thinks that the 2nd Amendment actually encompasses all aspects of the right to keep and bear arms. I have news for everybody. It doesn't. The right to keep and bear arms is a right that predates the entire Constitution (including the 2nd amendment) by several hundreds of years.

Where do you think the founding fathers and even the pilgrims git their rights to keep and to bear arms? The U.S. Constitution was not even on the radar at that point.

The 2nd Amendment secures "the people's" right to "form MILITIAS" for maintaining the security of a "free State."

The 2nd Amendment is NOT where the right to keep and bear arms COMES from.

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

intrinsic rights are a lie. you have no rights but those which you can exercise.

And you utterly misunderstand what rights are.

You also misunderstand how that directly effects government and its ability to dominate its populace.

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

do people in China have a right to a free press, or due process?

we have decided as a society that we should protect and guarantee certain rights. but that societal protection does not give you rights you can't exercise

 

[Chuz Life]

This is true of all rights. That is the radical concept that the constitution gave voice to - that rights are intrinsic not granted by a government. It is also one of the core concepts of self governance that is being lost in the modern world much to the detriment of the American people.

intrinsic rights are a lie. you have no rights but those which you can exercise.

And you utterly misunderstand what rights are.

You also misunderstand how that directly effects government and its ability to dominate its populace.

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

do people in China have a right to a free press, or due process?

Yes. They do.

Why else would you think that China is constantly accused of human rights violations against them?

we have decided as a society that we should protect and guarantee certain rights. but that societal protection does not give you rights you can't exercise

Again, bullshit.

Re-read my previous post.

 

[ogibillm]

intrinsic rights are a lie. you have no rights but those which you can exercise.

And you utterly misunderstand what rights are.

You also misunderstand how that directly effects government and its ability to dominate its populace.

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

do people in China have a right to a free press, or due process?

Yes. They do.

Why else would you think that China is constantly accused of human rights violations against them?

we have decided as a society that we should protect and guarantee certain rights. but that societal protection does not give you rights you can't exercise

Again, bullshit.

Re-read my previous post.

human rights are just rights we have decided all people should have. they are not right side all people have.

again, people in North Korea don't have freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, or freedom of movement, or free press, or a right to due process. they can't exercise those rights, therefore they do not have them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS, not Congress, has the final say on matters constitutional. Article III.

If Congress withdraws SCOTUS jurisdiction on the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional and that will be the end of it.

 

[Chuz Life]

And you utterly misunderstand what rights are.

You also misunderstand how that directly effects government and its ability to dominate its populace.

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

do people in China have a right to a free press, or due process?

Yes. They do.

Why else would you think that China is constantly accused of human rights violations against them?

we have decided as a society that we should protect and guarantee certain rights. but that societal protection does not give you rights you can't exercise

Again, bullshit.

Re-read my previous post.

human rights are just rights we have decided all people should have. they are not right side all people have.

again, people in North Korea don't have freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, or freedom of movement, or free press, or a right to due process. they can't exercise those rights, therefore they do not have them.

You are trying to use the violations and the denials of rights in one part of the world to argue against the existence or to deny rights here in the U.S.

In doing so, you make yourself look like a fool.

If you are attacked physically by someone. . . would you not have a RIGHT to defend yourself?

If you think not? You are an even bigger idiot than you have already led me to believe you are.

 

[SwimExpert]

SCOTUS, not Congress, has the final say on matters constitutional. Article III.

If Congress withdraws SCOTUS jurisdiction on the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional and that will be the end of it.

Read article III. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

do people in China have a right to a free press, or due process?

Yes. They do.

Why else would you think that China is constantly accused of human rights violations against them?

we have decided as a society that we should protect and guarantee certain rights. but that societal protection does not give you rights you can't exercise

Again, bullshit.

Re-read my previous post.

human rights are just rights we have decided all people should have. they are not right side all people have.

again, people in North Korea don't have freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, or freedom of movement, or free press, or a right to due process. they can't exercise those rights, therefore they do not have them.

You are trying to use the violations and the denials of rights in one part of the world to argue against the existence or to deny rights here in the U.S.

In doing so, you make yourself look like a fool.

If you are attacked physically by someone. . . would you not have a RIGHT to defend yourself?

If you think not? You are an even bigger idiot than you have already led me to believe you are.

chuz, you do not have the right to shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS, not Congress, has the final say on matters constitutional. Article III.

If Congress withdraws SCOTUS jurisdiction on the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional and that will be the end of it.

Read article III. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS will opine that since it has incorporated the Second Amendment in 2009, that Congress does not have the authority any longer to withdraw jurisdiction.

 

[amrchaos]

no, just a statement of fact. you do not have rights you cannot exercise.

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

do people in China have a right to a free press, or due process?

Yes. They do.

Why else would you think that China is constantly accused of human rights violations against them?

we have decided as a society that we should protect and guarantee certain rights. but that societal protection does not give you rights you can't exercise

Again, bullshit.

Re-read my previous post.

human rights are just rights we have decided all people should have. they are not right side all people have.

again, people in North Korea don't have freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, or freedom of movement, or free press, or a right to due process. they can't exercise those rights, therefore they do not have them.

You are trying to use the violations and the denials of rights in one part of the world to argue against the existence or to deny rights here in the U.S.

In doing so, you make yourself look like a fool.

If you are attacked physically by someone. . . would you not have a RIGHT to defend yourself?

If you think not? You are an even bigger idiot than you have already led me to believe you are.

I don't think he is arguing against the existence of, or trying to deny rights here

However what he is arguing seems badly phrased.

 

[SwimExpert]

SCOTUS, not Congress, has the final say on matters constitutional. Article III.

If Congress withdraws SCOTUS jurisdiction on the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional and that will be the end of it.

Read article III. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS will opine that since it has incorporated the Second Amendment in 2009, that Congress does not have the authority any longer to withdraw jurisdiction.

Doubt it. The SCOTUS has historically been all too complicit in Congress' ability to limit its jurisdiction. Personally, I think it's a mistaken understanding. IMO, the intention of the framers was probably to allow Congress the power to pass matters between original and appellate jurisdiction as might be prudent for organizational purposes.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I saw this ruling the other day and I thought that the federal courts can no longer be trusted to protect the 2nd amendment so why not just remove their jurisdiction over those cases all together? It would then go to each state's courts and they can decide if federal gun laws are constitutional or not. I'm really don't care if California wants to take away every gun from every one of their citizens because if that is the way they want to live then let them. I would prefer that to a supreme court decision that could affect every state in the same crappy way.

Because legislatively preempting a court's jurisdiction to review laws for their constitutionality is one of the most extreme examples of government corruption and tyranny possible. What would you think about Congress passing a universal ban on all guns whatsoever, and attaching a jurisdictional preemption clause to it which forbade the courts from reviewing the law? You'd be outraged. And rightly you should. It's no less an abuse in the opposite direction.

Federal Courts fall under Congressional authority meaning they can do exactly as proposed.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The supreme court has an appellete jurisdiction to all lower courts but congress can create exceptions if it wanted to.

Yes, I said that. But the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and the laws of the United States. Therefore, some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that are challenged as being against the 2nd amendment. If an act of Congress deprived all federal courts from having jurisdiction to hear such cases, that that act of Congress would be in violation to the constitution.

Why does it say "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make". Obviously it is OK to do such a thing even in extreme situations such as what you described.

True of false: The judicial power extends to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States.

True but the next sentence says with exceptions and regulations that congress can create.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

SCOTUS, not Congress, has the final say on matters constitutional. Article III.

If Congress withdraws SCOTUS jurisdiction on the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional and that will be the end of it.

What happens if such a case never reaches the supreme court? I also believe that their is precedence for this because congress has used such a power to remove the supreme court's power in a lot of cases. I believed it was used after the civil war when southern criminals were put on trial.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I also believe that the supreme court was also created with a piece of legislation back in 1790 something. It still exist today. It should make one wonder if congress can do away with the current supreme court and establish a new one.

 

[ogibillm]

Your claim is bullshit.

Even a person in a coma has basic human rights and they have them even during the time that they are completely incapable of exercising any of them. The right to due process, the right to not be violated or murdered, even their right to speak is maintained and must be respected by law.

do people in China have a right to a free press, or due process?

Yes. They do.

Why else would you think that China is constantly accused of human rights violations against them?

we have decided as a society that we should protect and guarantee certain rights. but that societal protection does not give you rights you can't exercise

Again, bullshit.

Re-read my previous post.

human rights are just rights we have decided all people should have. they are not right side all people have.

again, people in North Korea don't have freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, or freedom of movement, or free press, or a right to due process. they can't exercise those rights, therefore they do not have them.

You are trying to use the violations and the denials of rights in one part of the world to argue against the existence or to deny rights here in the U.S.

In doing so, you make yourself look like a fool.

If you are attacked physically by someone. . . would you not have a RIGHT to defend yourself?

If you think not? You are an even bigger idiot than you have already led me to believe you are.

I don't think he is arguing against the existence of, or trying to deny rights here

However what he is arguing seems badly phrased.

Let me try to rephrase it then...

you don't have rights you can't exercise. what we consider 'human rights' are a relatively new construct.

but we do not have intrinsic rights. we only have those rights which we can exercise. how else can we demonstrate that a right exists if we are unable to use it?

take the example of a slave. you may feel he as a right to freedom; a right to be viewed as other than property. however if nobody else recognizes that right, if he is unable to exercise it, he will remain a slave. if enough people agree that he should have the right to be free hencyclopedia may find himself able to exercise that right.

finally, look at how our view of human rights have changed. is it a right not to be whipped in the public square? is it a right for women to be able to hold and own property? is it a right for people to have control over their reproductive systems? is it a right to have a voice in your government?

these are relatively new 'rights.' if we have intrinsic rights where we're thise rights in the recent past?

 

[SwimExpert]

The supreme court has an appellete jurisdiction to all lower courts but congress can create exceptions if it wanted to.

Yes, I said that. But the judicial power extends to all cases and controversies under the constitution and the laws of the United States. Therefore, some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that are challenged as being against the 2nd amendment. If an act of Congress deprived all federal courts from having jurisdiction to hear such cases, that that act of Congress would be in violation to the constitution.

Why does it say "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make". Obviously it is OK to do such a thing even in extreme situations such as what you described.

True of false: The judicial power extends to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States.

True but the next sentence says with exceptions and regulations that congress can create.

So....does the judicial power extend to all cases and controversies arising under the constitution, or not?