SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling

[Hobbes]

They were taking the second ammendment too literally back then

I know but if you let them think they can force a person to buy a firearm the next thing you know they'll get the idea that they have the right to force you to buy health insurance.

 

[ignerntbend]

Here is a government mandate from 1792:


Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen...who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years...shall...be enrolled in the militia....Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges....” [emphasis added]

What a bunch of communists.

They were taking the second ammendment too literally back then.

 

[farmerbyron]

Here is a government mandate from 1792:

Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen...who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years...shall...be enrolled in the militia....Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges....” [emphasis added]

What a bunch of communists.

And yet 4 of our SC justices does not believe the second amendment refers to an individual right.

 

[ignerntbend]

And yet 4 of our SC justices does not believe the second amendment refers to an individual right.

Exactly.That's because they don't reduce the amendment to it's subordinate clause like we do.
I'm not being sarcastic. I want my gun rights as much as you want yours.

 

[MLR]

I get your viewpoint; thanks for replying reasonably.

I differ from you in that I think pragmatism and common sense should be used a bit and a 100% strict Constitutionalist approach is unreasonable. A strict Constitutionalist believes things like anyone who doesn't think the National Park Service Act of 1916 as an obvious illegal threat the well being of our nation is a nutjob, and I personally believe strict Constitutionalists are nutjobs for such viewpoints.

REPEAL YELLOWSTONE!!! IMPEACH GRANT!!! NO FEDS NO OWN NO TREES NO NEVER!!!

There are those that believe banning forty four ounce soda's and guns to be common sense. If Government is allowed to use the law as a mere guideline it will constantly stretch it into any shape it desires.

Michael

 

[ignerntbend]

You realize that nine out of nine SC justices don't even pay lip service to the seventh amendment? What has happened to my country?
Men froze their feet at Valley Forge over those twenty dollars.

 

[farmerbyron]

Exactly.That's because they don't reduce the amendment to it's subordinate clause like we do.
I'm not being sarcastic. I want my gun rights as much as you want yours.

Guess technically that 2 of our current justices voted against an individual right but I have no doubts that Sotomayor and Kagan would have decided the same way as Souter and Stevens.

The argument comes down to the meaning of "Well regulated militia". Well regulated can certainly mean well equipped or provisioned. Especially considering that the militia consisted of all able bodied men and they were expected to bring their own arms. Also of note, every other amendment was a restriction upon govt. so how can you make the case that the second amendment is different and guaranteed the govts. right over the people. Which leads into another section of the wording. "The right of the people", is spelled out only in the first and second amendments and no one questions whether or not the first amendment is primarily an individual right.

Can't believe I'm having to make this case on a gun forum. You cannot ignore the whole wording and the context under which it was written.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Though I've not had the chance to read Robert's opinion on the Obama Care debacle, I believe I heard that Roberts wrote - and four other Justices concurred - that Congress enacted the will of the people with the passage of Obama Care. Those five citizens, though they sit on the most powerful bench in the judicial system, couldn't be more wrong. [size=+2] The will of the people is that which is expressed in the Constitution and not what the current demagogued desideratum might be![/size] If anything not granted Congress to legislate is the will of the people, it must be made possible for Congress to enact such law via an amendment to the Constitution.

I'm ashamed of the Court for expressing and acting upon such drivel. I'm ashamed of the rest of us - myself included - for allowing this debacle to stand as the law of the land. We reap what we have sewn, and we reap the weeds we allow to grow as well. I've had a bitter taste in my mouth since the Court vomited out this decision. I wonder how many of us will swallow...

I hope that made you gag.

Woody

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their
constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed
by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.​

 

[Billybob]

You realize that nine out of nine SC justices don't even pay lip service to the seventh amendment? What has happened to my country?
Men froze their feet at Valley Forge over those twenty dollars.

More to it than just $20. You can be forced into court and loose the right to live in your home, half or more of your money and guns,(or gun rights) and your children but just try getting a jury trial in "Family" court.

 

[inactive]

Though I've not had the chance to read Robert's opinion on the Obama Care debacle, I believe I heard that Roberts wrote - and four other Justices concurred - that Congress enacted the will of the people with the passage of Obama Care. ...

I'm ashamed of the Court for expressing and acting upon such drivel.

You know that Roberts and the other four didn't uphold the act as constitutional simply because the electorate's representatives enacted it, right? They upheld it because they believe it passed muster (for better or worse, and I certainly admit they could be wrong).

Furthermore, I think you need to read more of Robert's opinion (or at least the parts of which are described in this very thread) before hanging him out to try on this. It's rather insightful as to his opinion of the health care act; Roberts sided the way he did quite frankly only because of his stance on the constitutionality of the act.