Howard Roark Posted December 31, 2010 at 07:20 AM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 07:20 AM Oye, Oye, all will now rise. You are a Justice on the United States Supreme Court. The year is 2012. You are a red blooded American who likes to wear blue and votes that way. Like most of your colleagues, you have never shot a real gun, although you watched Band of Brothers and sometimes watch CSI. You even watched some Bruce Lee movies where nunchaku's were tossed about and it looked pretty scary. You're against nunchaku's because they are made for only one purpose... to hurt living human beings. Never mind that they are mostly a theatrical show and all eyes turn in awe at the nunchaku master at his/her work. You know the law. You are a Justice in a black robe. And you are a strong advocate for community safety and the rule of law. And you have seen the destruction that guns can bring. You know all about "stare decisis" and you are fluent in Latin. You are, after all, a Justice on the Supreme Court. You have already voted to certify a case to the Supreme Court which can unify the militia clause to the rights clause in the Second Amendment. Times have changed, it is not 1791 any more. You know the right thing to do and you feel confident in your thinking. You understand the values of the Constitution as Justice Bryer so eloquently outlined for the American people. Focusing on words and history must be balanced with values and you know that there is value in peaceful communities where children are safe. But you're a little afraid of your own power. You have the power with your vote to overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions. You have the power to unify the militia clause with the rights clause, to ensure that the value of safe communities is restored for hundreds of years into the future. But you're a little afraid of what might happen, if you overturn Heller & McDonald and restore Miller to restrict arms to the militia instead of the people. What would happen? You mean well, you want to serve your country. You want to be true to the values of Madison and not just the ancient words of the Constitution. What would happen if you vote to overturn Heller / McDonald ? You decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted December 31, 2010 at 08:17 AM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 08:17 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 31, 2010 at 10:50 AM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 10:50 AM I really like the Beatles music ... but after listening to that again, I suspect I wouldn't let them into my garage band ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 31, 2010 at 10:54 AM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 10:54 AM You have already voted to certify a case to the Supreme Court which can unify the militia clause to the rights clause in the Second Amendment. Can you explain this bit about unifying the militia clause with the rights clause? Quite frankly, I see the two as unified, though not strictly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted December 31, 2010 at 01:20 PM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 01:20 PM What would happen? You mean well, you want to serve your country. You want to be true to the values of Madison and not just the ancient words of the Constitution. What would happen if you vote to overturn Heller / McDonald ? What FF said above. At the very least civil disobedience would raise to an all-timed high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 31, 2010 at 03:39 PM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 03:39 PM I read somewhere (can't put my finger on it) an opinion that the public reaction to Heller and McDonald were "subdued" ... I think the implication being that the rulings weren't that big of a deal. At least it seemed that is what the author seemed to think (or hope). However ... what I have not read an opinion about is what might have happened had the court wiped out any constitutional guarantee of our right to arms? What if, for example, Kennedy had voted the other way, and the majority opinion would have been authored by Breyer? I wonder if the public reaction to that would also have been "subdued?" Even Breyer himself has stated that supreme court decisions must somehow comport with the public's view of the issue. With at least 75% of the American public believing they have a guaranteed right to arms ... and with some smaller percentage VERY STRONGLY believing so ... what would have been the reaction to a decision that effectively nullified our right to arms? Subdued reaction? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted December 31, 2010 at 05:00 PM Author Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 05:00 PM You have already voted to certify a case to the Supreme Court which can unify the militia clause to the rights clause in the Second Amendment. Can you explain this bit about unifying the militia clause with the rights clause? Quite frankly, I see the two as unified, though not strictly so. Heller dissenting opinion (page 68) The dissenting opinion's argument equates militia with military (standing army) and sets the first clause of the amendment as a limit to the second clause. In other words, they think the Constitution only protects the right in the context of the military, and legislatures may infringe the right in all other civilian contexts. The definition they use of the militia is non-historical. The militia is all the people, I looked it up. The dissenting opinion is pretty much what we would have if one vote had gone the other way, so it is an instructive read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted December 31, 2010 at 06:25 PM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 06:25 PM In a truly Miller interpretation would not the NFA'a transfer tax be a practical prohibition on the average and poor to properly arm themselves with military weapons for use in their militia role? Machine-guns for all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 31, 2010 at 09:12 PM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 09:12 PM the Fantasy Court would be, Me as Chief Judge (Molly would be my clerk for spelling errors) Grandfan Federal Farmer Sigma Sentor Ed Petka Dave Hardy Megan Fox Scalia Clarence Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted December 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM Author Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM the Fantasy Court would be, Me as Chief Judge (Molly would be my clerk for spelling errors)GrandfanFederal FarmerSigmaSentor Ed PetkaDave HardyMegan FoxScaliaClarence Thomas LOL! And here are your opponents in this winner-take-all round of Supreme Court Fantasy League: Justice , former States Attorney for Cook CountyJustice Lisa Madigan, former Attorney General for IllinoisJustice Hillary Clinton, former President of the United StatesJustice Michael Bloomberg, former computer salesman and M.A.I.G. Propaganda MinisterJustice Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United NationsJustice Andrew Traver, former President of the Million Mom March (Northern Illinois Chapter)Justice , author of the History of American Freedom (standard college text)Justice Lisa Simpson Television star, activist, philosopherJustice General Gage, long serving peace keeper and public safety instructor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 31, 2010 at 11:20 PM Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 11:20 PM This is a joke, of course. Ah heck ... we could settle it the old-fashioned way, pistol dueling at 20 paces. GarandFan volunteers to be first for our side, and will take them on one by one until the matter is settled. Traver is the only one to potentially worry about. But let's make it fair, in that opponents simultaneously draw from holster at the sound of a buzzer. That was a joke, of course. Don't like that? I'd settle for arm-wrestling as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted January 1, 2011 at 01:50 AM Author Share Posted January 1, 2011 at 01:50 AM In a truly Miller interpretation would not the NFA'a transfer tax be a practical prohibition on the average and poor to properly arm themselves with military weapons for use in their militia role? Machine-guns for all! That's a good legal argument for a later battle. For the next 24 months we should concentrate on the right of individual private self protection both outside of the home and within. It's easy to imagine an America where private single shot .22 caliber rifles are banned. (as recent as 2010 this was the case). Let's solidify first. Machine guns? Let's focus on the most important things first. Individual safety is the most important goal. The political aspects are a close second. When the revolution starts, I will send a memo with a call to arms. (only half joking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted January 1, 2011 at 06:41 AM Share Posted January 1, 2011 at 06:41 AM Megan Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted January 1, 2011 at 08:07 AM Share Posted January 1, 2011 at 08:07 AM This is a joke, of course. Ah heck ... we could settle it the old-fashioned way, pistol dueling at 20 paces. GarandFan volunteers to be first for our side, and will take them on one by one until the matter is settled. Traver is the only one to potentially worry about. But let's make it fair, in that opponents simultaneously draw from holster at the sound of a buzzer. That was a joke, of course. Don't like that? I'd settle for arm-wrestling as well. If we do it with flint-locks I'll take on Traver...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
templar223 Posted January 2, 2011 at 03:03 PM Share Posted January 2, 2011 at 03:03 PM It says what it means and means what it says. It lives as black letter law. It doesn't breath. It doesn't "grow" except through Amendments. It doesn't change shapes or forms. It doesn't "fit" around issues. Issues either comply or they don't. And frankly, 95% of what CONgress has done is invalid. * Full faith and credit would have a whole new meaning.* We'd have trials and public hangings for sedition.* There would be no formal religion and religion would not be a part of court decisions, but that would the the extent of 'separation'. Sharia law? Like heck.* Gun laws? Eh, wrong. Invalid.* Cruel and unusual would be draw and quartering or an "eye for an eye" amputations. Hard labor, small cells, chain gangs and more hard labor would not. Cable TV or any TV, porn, weight benches, and other amenities would be gone. If they are going to bulk up, it will be from working twelve hours a day doing hard labor. The laundry, cleaning and kitchen details will be considered "light duty" for those who are exemplary prisoners. Those who have bad attitudes will break big boulders into sand all day long... Issues of religious "requirements" in prison are all gone. Don't like the food? Don't eat it.* The 10th Amendment would be key. No more federal 'mandates' or 'regulation' for non-interstate commerce issues. And just because raw materials cross a state line doesn't mean Uncle Sam can regulate the finished product if it's not going to be sold outside the state where it was produced.* No more alleged drug money seizures. If .gov wants to seize someone's property, they have to do it after a successful criminal trial. * Say goodbye to DUI enforcement checkpoints.* Say goodbye to capital murderers and serial sex offenders... there will be a new express lane to the gallows as the appellate process is quite streamlined. Oh, the electric chair and gas chamber will be brought back along with the firing squad. The list would go on and on, but you get the idea. John ETA: My fantasy-league court (primarily nationally known folks)... Vandermyde as the liberal wing of the court (LOL!) Mark Levin.Clarence Thomas.Antonin Scalia (chief justice).Ronnie Barrett.Rush Limbaugh.Eugene Volokh.Myself.and last, but not least, Condoleeza Rice. Let the revolution begin! Oh, and if any of the above were unable to serve, the stand-by list: John Bolton.Walter Williams.Glenn Beck.John Roberts.Michelle Malkin.Marco Rubio.Fred Thompson.Larry Pratt.Sarah Palin. (take that!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashrak Posted January 6, 2011 at 04:07 AM Share Posted January 6, 2011 at 04:07 AM It says what it means and means what it says. It lives as black letter law. It doesn't breath. It doesn't "grow" except through Amendments. It doesn't change shapes or forms. It doesn't "fit" around issues. Issues either comply or they don't. And frankly, 95% of what CONgress has done is invalid. * Full faith and credit would have a whole new meaning.* We'd have trials and public hangings for sedition.* There would be no formal religion and religion would not be a part of court decisions, but that would the the extent of 'separation'. Sharia law? Like heck.* Gun laws? Eh, wrong. Invalid.* Cruel and unusual would be draw and quartering or an "eye for an eye" amputations. Hard labor, small cells, chain gangs and more hard labor would not. Cable TV or any TV, porn, weight benches, and other amenities would be gone. If they are going to bulk up, it will be from working twelve hours a day doing hard labor. The laundry, cleaning and kitchen details will be considered "light duty" for those who are exemplary prisoners. Those who have bad attitudes will break big boulders into sand all day long... Issues of religious "requirements" in prison are all gone. Don't like the food? Don't eat it.* The 10th Amendment would be key. No more federal 'mandates' or 'regulation' for non-interstate commerce issues. And just because raw materials cross a state line doesn't mean Uncle Sam can regulate the finished product if it's not going to be sold outside the state where it was produced.* No more alleged drug money seizures. If .gov wants to seize someone's property, they have to do it after a successful criminal trial. * Say goodbye to DUI enforcement checkpoints.* Say goodbye to capital murderers and serial sex offenders... there will be a new express lane to the gallows as the appellate process is quite streamlined. Oh, the electric chair and gas chamber will be brought back along with the firing squad. The list would go on and on, but you get the idea. John ETA: My fantasy-league court (primarily nationally known folks)... Vandermyde as the liberal wing of the court (LOL!) Mark Levin.Clarence Thomas.Antonin Scalia (chief justice).Ronnie Barrett.Rush Limbaugh.Eugene Volokh.Myself.and last, but not least, Condoleeza Rice. Let the revolution begin! Oh, and if any of the above were unable to serve, the stand-by list: John Bolton.Walter Williams.Glenn Beck.John Roberts.Michelle Malkin.Marco Rubio.Fred Thompson.Larry Pratt.Sarah Palin. (take that!) As "Interstate Commerce" doesn't exist in the Constitution, I would have to add a bit to your list. I would stand firm in the fact that people are not states and that never, in a republican form of government, has government of any kind been tasked with regulating commerce among the people. That meaning that private two party contracts are exactly that. Private. Two party. Contracts. The only legitimate role government has in this area is when for example, you and I engage in a one of these two party contracts and there is a dispute about one of us not holding up our end. Thus, the judiciary is called into action. Say I sell you a .223 and bill it as in good working order. You pay me for it and we both go about our business. You head to the range the next day and cannot fire 5 rounds without a frustrating jam. You file an action claiming that I sold you something other than what I presented. It is for the court to decide, after we each present our side of the case, if the contract was fulfilled or not. It is also for the court to decide proper restitution for you, provided you win the argument. You spoke of the Constitution not being "living", save being amended. I agree 100%. "Interstate commerce", like its cousin "intrastate Commerce" is effectively an amendment done from within the Judiciary and the Constitution demands that the federal Legislature do so and that state legislatures consent. Our Constitution does not authorize government to regulate commerce among the people. If it did, it would say so. It does not. I know this to be true, I am not an Indian Tribe, I am not a State and I am not a foreign power. Remember, that framing document does not say "among the people of the several states". I like your court picks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.