SCOTUS strikes down D.C.'s hand gun ban.

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"Those type of decisions, where the "Public" has voted and let their opinion be known and then overturned is a large issue with many folks...."

Yeah, but that pesky Constitution just gets in the way.

Since DouglasDubh doesn't have the cajones to answer, maybe you do. What harm could gays bring to marriage that straights haven't already done to it?

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

"What harm could gays bring to marriage that straights haven't already done to it?"

An ickyness they don't approve of. They simply don't approve with the "gay" thing. Eeeewwwwwwww!!!!! And Ted Haggard told them its bbbaaaadddddddd. Of course, when he was denouncing gays he was snorting crystal while getting done in the ......
Sorry gotta go my moms calling.

 

Originally Posted By DAR

<<What harm could gays bring to marriage that straights haven't already done to it?>>

Are gay people going to be armed with guns?

 

Originally Posted By X-san

If they want to, I guess.

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

"Are gay people going to be armed with guns?"

That would take the Gay Marriage debate to a whole new level.

 

Originally Posted By mrkthompsn

I think the framers meant "Grizzly Bear Arms".

 

Originally Posted By mrkthompsn

What's strange to me is, even viewing from both sides of the fence, why should all these decision be 4-5 or 5-4 decisions? The Constitution is very clear from any perspective. The decisions should seem to be 9-0 or 6-3 at worse.

 

Originally Posted By X-san

Look to who appointed the judges.

Obama will change things up nicely, I'm sure. For the better.

The constitution is pretty clear, but nobody is reading it that way.

And anyway, the constitution is being ignored on so many other fronts these days, it doesn't matter much.

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

The Constitution is more of a guideline than laws, right?

 

Originally Posted By X-san

I sure wish it weren't, but that appears to be the way people are treating it these days.

If we can't even agree on something as simple as "all men are created equal"...what chance do we have?

 

Originally Posted By mrkthompsn

The Constitution is ~the~ law.

 

Originally Posted By X-san

Not these days it isn't.

I wish it were!

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

When they said all men, they really meant, "all Americans". Our creator didn't give foreigners inalienable rights. Everybody knows God likes US more. That's why the word "us" is spelled U.S.(of A).
Go America.

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< What's strange to me is, even viewing from both sides of the fence, why should all these decision be 4-5 or 5-4 decisions? The Constitution is very clear from any perspective. >>>

I wish I had your 20/20 vision. Then again, we've been told that the Constitution and therefore our nation itself has no legal basis of existence unless we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord, because of the use of the phrase "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" in Article VII. Some people who think they can see clearly are absolutely convinced of this, but I don't think most people share this view (regardless of their personal belief systems about Christ).

So, the actual meaning of any given phrase in the Constitution, and why it was put there, can be very much unclear at times, especially in situations that were not envisioned by the original authors.

 

Originally Posted By mrkthompsn

The language of the Constitution is full of 'shall's, not 'ought's. If it were full of 'ought's, then it could be thought of as a guideline.

Plus, there this little blurb from Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

Originally Posted By mrkthompsn

Superdry - don't forget about "and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth" as well.

<So, the actual meaning of any given phrase in the Constitution, and why it was put there, can be very much unclear at times, especially in situations that were not envisioned by the original authors.>

The visions of the authors and the words actually written can be two different things. As we cannot fully enter the minds of others, we are left only to read words.

A lot of people have signed contracts without reading and understanding all of the text. The signators and all who they represent are bound to the words of the document - not necessarily the minds of the document's authors.

 

Originally Posted By barboy

///The 2nd Amendment right is very clear///


Ya, about as clear as the Mississippi River.


To bring Jonny Mac to the table,

"You can not be serious"

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< The visions of the authors and the words actually written can be two different things. As we cannot fully enter the minds of others, we are left only to read words. >>>

Alright - I'll play that game. What does the term "arms" mean in the context of the Second Amendment? By your rule above, don't use historical context - base your answer only on the words, or in this case, word, at hand as written in the Constitution.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<LMAO! You know, I actually agree with the court's decision in this matter. The second amendment is pretty clear. But SuperDry, you knocked it out of the park with that post.>

Totally agree. SuperDry, great post.

I also agree with this recent decision, as I think the DC law went too far, and was rightly found to be in violation of the Constitution. Right wingers are generally okay with this, because they generally favor gun rights, and would never think of calling the majority "activist judges" on this, even though they overturned a law passed by the duly elected legislative representatives of the people.

Yet when the supreme courts of MA and CA, for instance, say that gay people must have the equal right to marry, because the laws banning it violate the 14th amendment, suddenly these judges are "activist judges" to a lot of right-wingers. It's a clear double standard.

Me, I think BOTH cases were rightly decided, and I understand that the role of the courts here is to decide if a law passes constitutional muster or if it doesn't, not if it's popular with a majority of its constituents or not.

 

Originally Posted By mrkthompsn

I agree that the government could have a role to play to define what are appropriate "arms" for the populace. Is it reasonable to permit a paranoid delusional maniac to bear a gun? The government could have a place to say no. But the Constitution does protect the maniac to bear a big stick. I would say a fair reading of the second amendment should allow a citizen to bear reasonable arms.