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

[Lakhota]

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.

First of all, dumbass, that would be unconstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

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.

First of all, dumbass, that would be unconstitutional.

No.....the jurisdiction of the courts is created by congress...they can expand or limit the courts as they want...it is a check and balance on judicial power.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Wrong.....the right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution...

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

The 2nd codifies it. Even then, most people get it wrong...

 

[Lakhota]

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.

First of all, dumbass, that would be unconstitutional.

No.....the jurisdiction of the courts is created by congress...they can expand or limit the courts as they want...it is a check and balance on judicial power.....

So, are you suggesting that federal courts should not have jurisdiction over the U.S. Constitution? I suspect the Supreme Court would beg to differ with you...

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

 

[BluesLegend]

The 2nd amendment is higher then all three branches of government including the federal courts. They are its bitch!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Er....

You do know that the Heller case upheld the Presser case, which basically said that carrying arms is NOT protected by the 2A (because it's not bearing arms, bearing arms is "render military service" or "militia duty", in the words of the founding fathers).

 

[ogibillm]

Yes. They do.

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

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?

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

an atomic is a physical object. it exists outside of our collective consciousness. rights are social constructs. they do not exist if we do not recognize them.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

we can believe they should rights their governmentioned does not. the extent to which we believe that dictates how we deal.with their government. but that doesn't matter to the guy in North Korea who is arrested and thrown in jail because someone thinks he said something bad about the government. that man has no right to a trial, no right to be free, and no right to speak his mind. he can't exercise them, therefore for him they don't exist.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

and that doesn't change that rights are a social construct and do not exist I'd you cannot exercise them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes. They do.

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

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?

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

Winner!

 

[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.

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

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

 

[SwimExpert]

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

What you're not seeming to understand here is that judicial power means that some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that involved second amendment issues. Also, the exception clause means that Congress can create exceptions to appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. It does not mean that Congress can except an issue from any judicial review whatsoever.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

What you're not seeming to understand here is that judicial power means that some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that involved second amendment issues. Also, the exception clause means that Congress can create exceptions to appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. It does not mean that Congress can except an issue from any judicial review whatsoever.

Congress can remove those lower courts out of existence if it wanted to and if congress created an exception for cases involving guns then what federal court could overhear cases involving guns?

 

[SwimExpert]

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

What you're not seeming to understand here is that judicial power means that some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that involved second amendment issues. Also, the exception clause means that Congress can create exceptions to appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. It does not mean that Congress can except an issue from any judicial review whatsoever.

Congress can remove those lower courts out of existence if it wanted to and if congress created an exception for cases involving guns then what federal court could overhear cases involving guns?

It would be unconstitutional in the first place for Congress to remove the matter entirely from judicial review. What part of "all" do you not understand?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

What you're not seeming to understand here is that judicial power means that some court must have jurisdiction to hear cases that involved second amendment issues. Also, the exception clause means that Congress can create exceptions to appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. It does not mean that Congress can except an issue from any judicial review whatsoever.

Congress can remove those lower courts out of existence if it wanted to and if congress created an exception for cases involving guns then what federal court could overhear cases involving guns?

It would be unconstitutional in the first place for Congress to remove the matter entirely from judicial review. What part of "all" do you not understand?

It wouldn't actually be removed from judicial review because state courts could examine the federal laws themselves at that point. Judicial power would still exist but if there are no lower courts and the supreme court isn't allowed to hear the case then what court would ever be able to hear those cases? Technichally their might be some power over those cases but if those courts don't exist then how can that power be used?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

So , SCOTUS can amend the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

Alexander Hamilton's statement to the fact that the BOR -2A - provided NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER THE right to bear (carry) firearms is bullshit?


.

 

[SwimExpert]

It wouldn't actually be removed from judicial review because state courts could examine the federal laws themselves at that point.

Irrelevant. The constitution is speaking about the judicial power of the federal government.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Those rights were there - they simply were not protected and rights can be violated. We have come in modern times to recognize that those rights exist and have always existed even if we did not realize that they were there before. It is the natural state of man.

you are essentially arguing that because we did not know about the atom 2000 years ago - it did not exist.

an atomic is a physical object. it exists outside of our collective consciousness. rights are social constructs. they do not exist if we do not recognize them.

With your argument, there is no reason that anyone should complain about the atrocities that occur in North Korea - those people there are not having their rights violated because they do not have any such rights. The NK government can do as it pleases without any moral or real world repercussions because, after all, the people there do not have any rights that are not recognized by their government.

we can believe they should rights their governmentioned does not. the extent to which we believe that dictates how we deal.with their government. but that doesn't matter to the guy in North Korea who is arrested and thrown in jail because someone thinks he said something bad about the government. that man has no right to a trial, no right to be free, and no right to speak his mind. he can't exercise them, therefore for him they don't exist.

Of course, this is exactly how governments viewed people's rights before the US based itself on the radical idea that rights were NOT constructs of the government but rather intrinsic to life and that one of the core purposes of government was to secure those rights. Secure them - NOT create them.

and that doesn't change that rights are a social construct and do not exist I'd you cannot exercise them.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. Clearly you reject the basic foundation of this nation. What is scary is that I do not think you or those that adhere to the same ideas of rights that you are truly understand the ramifications of such.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

Considering that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter and that they are the ones that decide what cases they hear and do not here when they are brought to them, congress removing them from the picture is irrelevant - the SCOTUS would hear the case and rule that such is unconstitutional.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

I said they do but with whatever exceptions congress decides to create. I also believe that says 'judicial power' not necessarily the supreme court of the united States.

Considering that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter and that they are the ones that decide what cases they hear and do not here when they are brought to them, congress removing them from the picture is irrelevant - the SCOTUS would hear the case and rule that such is unconstitutional.

WE THE PEOPLE are the FINAL arbiter