“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
So says the independent, active clause of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision, handed down in 2008, was in large part about the meaning of those words, particularly “right,” “the people,” “keep and bear,” “arms,” and “shall not be infringed.” The majority decision affirmed long-standing legal principle and common sense: words mean exactly what the dictionary says they mean and what reasonable people understand them to mean. Individual citizens have a fundamental right to keep and carry the kinds of arms in common and usual use. The decision is much more fuzzy on to what degree that right may be infringed, and only slightly less fuzzy on which arms may be regulated or banned . . .
Two Supreme Court decisions handed down last week, however, may very well threaten to reduce the Second Amendment to a right in name only. They are King v. Burwell–the Obamacare case–and Obergefell v. Hodges, the gay marriage case.
In King v. Burwell, a 6-3 majority of the Court held that federal subsidies may be paid to individuals regardless of the explicit language of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which says that subsidies are available only to those that purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state.” In order to reach this conclusion, the majority–Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion–had to hold that “state” doesn’t merely mean an individual state as actually defined by the ACA, but also means “federal government” and/or “Secretary of Health And Human Services (Burwell).” In other words, “State” also means its opposite.
This case should have been a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation; what does “state” mean? Unfortunately, the majority chose to ignore the common, usual, dictionary meaning of the word, and substituted instead an analysis based on what they believed the legislature intended rather than what they specifically wrote multiple times in the ACA. Justice Roberts wrote that the Congress–actually, all Democrats; not a single Republican voted for the ACA–intended to improve health care, so it was the Court’s job to save the ACA. This ignores the fact that if the Court stuck to its proper role, the ACA would simply have been returned to Congress who could have clarified and/or repaired any issue to its satisfaction. This is how our representative republic was designed to work.
Justice Scalia, who wrote the minority dissent, noted:
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.”
Justice Scalia went on to observe that the decision broke with the Court’s precedence, principles of legal analysis, and the Constitution.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, a 5-4 majority, despite the fact the Constitution is silent on the topic, created a fundamental right to gay marriage and held that the 14th Amendment requires the states to issue marriage licenses and to honor the licenses of those issued by all the states. It took the second of two decisions by the court–McDonald, in 2010–to acknowledge that the Second Amendment, a fundamental right actually expressed in the Constitution, applies to the states.
Amazingly, Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote one of the four separate dissents, noted:
“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. … But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
Justice Roberts went on to argue that the justification for the decision was invented, and its basis was nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
What does this have to do with the Second Amendment? More than one might imagine.
The next President of the United States may have the opportunity to appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices. For the moment, Heller and McDonald hang on the five/four majority of the court, which held that words do have specific and commonly understood meanings. The four judges of the liberal block can absolutely be counted upon to vote against the Constitution where the Second Amendment is concerned. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy observed:
“There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation…
And it is not so much that they move in lockstep. It is that no one expects them to do anything but move in lockstep — not their fellow justices, not the political branches, and certainly not the commentariat, right or left.
It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards. Guiding precedents are for the quaint business of administering justice. In the social justice business, the road never before traveled will do if one less traveled is unavailable.”
If the balance on the court changes, the Second Amendment will be rendered a dead letter. Remember that unlike Obergefell v. Hodges, where the progressive majority resolved the major issues immediately, it took them two years to apply the Second Amendment–an express, not an implied, right–to the states.
Still unresolved are exactly which kinds of weapons one may keep and bear and under which circumstances. Handguns seem safe, but what of the most common, usual and popular rifle, the AR-15 family? Unresolved too is the scope of infringement. For the moment, it seems that states must allow either some form of concealed carry, or open carry, but even that is not certain, and all manner of infringements may be concocted regarding when and where such carrying may occur. Even now, California and Chicago actively resist observing the Constitution and New York City remains essentially a gun free zone, at least for law-abiding citizens.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has now demonstrated that he is willing to abandon the court’s role in interpreting the language and meaning of statutes in favor of doing whatever is necessary to uphold progressive social justice goals. Yet simultaneously, he writes a dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges criticizing the majority for doing just that. Some legal observers have reasonably said that Roberts’ opinions in those cases appear to have been written by two different people, which is what one might expect when a Supreme Court Justice does not apply the law according to precedent and proper legal analysis. Who knows what “right,” “people,” “keep and bear” and “arms,” might be interpreted to mean? If King v. Burwell is any indication, their opposite.
Even if the ideological balance remains the same, the Court can no longer be expected to adhere even to its own prior decisions or methods of arriving at them. Maintaining, even increasing the ideological balance on the Court to justices dedicated to the rule of law rather than social justice outcomes, has become more important than ever.
If we wish to preserve the liberty the Second Amendment makes possible, the 2016 presidential election may well be the most consequential of our lifetime, made even more so by two seemingly unrelated Supreme Court decisions handed down in June of 2015.
Justice Roberts, and Justice Kennedy–the perennial “swing vote” on the Court–cannot be trusted to continue to interpret the Second Amendment by stare decisis and rational legal analysis. The four-person progressive bloc never could. As Octavius said in Julius Caesar (Act 4, scene 1):
“For we are at the stake
And bayed about with many enemies.
And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear,
Millions of mischiefs.”
I am not strong on legal process. What options exist for contesting (and ideally overturning) this decision based upon self-concocted meaning, instead of literal interpretation of words?
In a word? Bloodshed.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give me the right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment tells the Government that they can not infringe on that right. If the legislature, dictator, or courts remove or disregard the 2nd Amendment, they have not disregarded me. I will be willing to fire the first shot. Anyone that differs in that view is a coward, a Communist or a fool. God have mercy on your soul. Anyone not willing to use the 2nd Amendment for the stated goal, only believes in it when it is safe to do so. Hypocrisy. Why have so many gone to war and given their lives for their Government when so many are not willing to risk their lives to defend their own freedom from that Government?
If you have ever said or believed the phrase “never go full Yeager”, in effect what you are saying is “never defend the Constitution” for it is not in the courts of a corrupt Government where the 2nd Amendment will be defended. It is only on the battlefield. If you think this is the insane rantings of a blood thirsty lunatic, let me remind you that our soldiers are dying for much less. I support fighting enemies abroad, but that is no less irrational than my stance. Call it a line in the sand. Call it the ink on the parchment. The truth is, these are the rights of man endowed by the creator, therefore, not beholden to the legal system to destroy.
Time to come out. We have our flag. Wave it high.
The antis are way ahead of you. They’ve already filled the airwaves and mouths of elected officials with words like “right wing extremists” and “armed insurgents.” I’m sure your post will be copied, pasted and presented as evidence of exactly that.
The pen is mightier than the (CHOP!)…
You were saying?
The pen I’m worried about is the one that signs laws making previously law-abiding people into felons. That was also my point earlier, as the firearms-rights infringers are already labeling us as crazy and threatening.
My point is that laws against rights are not a law to be followed. Your point is pointless. You are the one pointing out that what I said is seen as extreme. It is only extreme when few are stating the truth. Look at the way Trump’s true words about illegal immigration are being used against him. If all the supposed Conservatives were speaking the truth then he wouldn’t be looked at as extreme. If we stop wringing our hands and all agree to take a stand, then we become the new norm. Which was the old norm in this country’s past.
The only reason liberals push gun control is because they do not fear us. They do not fear us because they contract out the fight when it comes to war. My view is the view of the authors of the Constitution. That view needs to be seen as normal. If we are afraid to express that view then we have only ourselves to blame.
As I believe we are making very similar points, my point is not pointless. Your observation about Trump’s words on immigration bein used against him underscores my point about your point being used against you by antis who are “ahead” in laying the foundation to do so — i.e., by pre-labeling anyone who stands up for the 2A as armed insurrectionists.
What you said was true but I said it is pointless because it doesn’t help the cause. I know people don’t like to hear the truth. I know people don’t like to say the truth for that reason. It is time we stopped worrying about hurting people’s feelings and start telling the truth. That is what I meant when I said come out and wave the flag. I don’t need you to remind me that the DC Cartel will use my words to marginalize me. What I need is for you to join me out here on the “fringe”.
The pen I’m worried about is the one that signs laws making previously law-abiding people into felons.
Yet another reason to not support any infringement on former felons’ right to keep and bear arms. If even they can keep and bear, it would be mighty difficult to disarm them and the rest of us with a few strokes of a pen. 😉
I don’t need you to remind me that the DC Cartel will use my words to marginalize me. What I need is for you to join me out here on the “fringe”.
Amen! (and pass the ammunition.)
Yes yes, many of us hold this belief as our line in the sand. I’m sorry some people think so little of themselves that they would trust a panel of elitist to decide if they have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones with modern arms. Sorry again… Not me, I know the value of my life and my families lives. Guess what, it’s worth a lot more than what the leftists consider their utopia.
We could pass a Constitutional Amendment with clear wording. And if the courts uphold policies and laws which are in clear contravention to the new Amendment, it would be time to remove those justices from the bench and prosecute them for treason.
They are ignoring the Constitution like a criminal ignores a no gun sign. They’ll ignore any new amendment even quicker.
Dear John In Ohio:
Actually, they’d just declare it to be unconstitutional.
LOL
I officially lost respect for SCOTUS when Obamacare was ruled “constitutional.” Not for the elites, mind you, but for us common folk. I tend to not give a sh!t about recent mental gymnastics of judges, except that their decisions cost taxpayer dollars, and move us further away from the unalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator.
The inconvenient truth is that the government of July 4, 2015 looks uncomfortably close to the government of July 4, 1776.
Hillary for Prison 2016 would be a great start.
Hillary for Prison works, as long as her cell mate is Barry Soetoro.
Hillary for President 2016 would go further towards the country righting itself. A RINO would only be a band-aid on a major wound. Of course, I don’t think that I can bring myself to actually vote for Hitlery but I also can’t bring myself to vote for the other tripe being offered so far. This might be the time that I don’t vote in a presidential election. 🙁
Have you missed Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul? We have some of the best choices we’ve ever had. Now if it was between Hillary and Jeb, that would be thoroughly terrible. I’d still vote as far away from Hillary as possible.
I encourage you to vote in the 2016 presidential election regardless of who runs. Vote for the best candidate since none of them will be anything close to perfect. And if all of them are so awful that you cannot bring yourself to vote for any of them, then vote for a write-in candidate … which could even be yourself if need be.
I recognize that a great multitude of people will likely face the same dilemma. That being the case, I just started toying with the idea of running myself as a write-in candidate. Of course a dark horse write-in candidate had zero chance of winning a presidential election in years past. Given recent events and the prevalence of Internet venues to reach the masses, a write-in candidate could actually be a serious contender for the first time in our nation’s history.
Good idea. I’ll need to decide between RF and Andrew Napolitano.
The US is no longer a country of laws, and has not been since the first Obamination election. It is now a country of “feelings” and that is nothing to be proud of. The takers now outnumber the makers which is the recipe for the downfall of the constitutional republic which once made this country great.
Socialism works great, right up until the time that you run out of other people’s money.
Or until Atlas shrugs.
When the producers have had enough and say “Fvck you” to the moochers and non-producers.
We have an example of where things are going. It’s called Greece. I hope they vote to reject the newest bailout package. Watching them go down, because they insist on living off other people’s efforts instead of working hard themselves, will be a salutary experience for other countries.
It hasn’t been since 1803.
The Democrats are HOPEless
The Republicans are feckless
The Tea Party gives a feck.
Article V convention of the States to Amend the Constitution needs to include a proposed Amendment for a procedure to impeach Supreme Court justices.
Amending the constitution is a pipe dream.
Ain’t gonna be done…..to many Dem states to block passage.
Any repub that floats this idea is just toying with you.
Here’s what can be done….
1) A Repub congress can unilaterally end the filibuster rules.
2) Then pack the SCOTUS with however many conservatives they want to
Of coarse the spineless Repubs would not do this.
Where the court did change the meaning of word in both those cases, until or unless a case is brought to them, for them to change the meaning in the second amendment we are still clear.
Excellent article, the conclusions are unacceptable but it’s well written and was thoughtful.
it would not surprise me if after roberts eventually steps down he is found to be unstable. but rights destroyed will not be re- instated.
like fdr at yalta. they should have re- drawn some borders.
They need one more leftist justice and you can bet your life that within two years they will gut the 2nd Amendment. Words and the Law have no meaning. The Supreme Court is nothing but a supra-legislative body that requires 5 votes to impose their will on 320 million people.
This will happen…soon…
Hopefully, when it does happen, people and states will finally do something about the judicial tyranny and lawlessness that exists in the Supreme Court.
[The Constitution] meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. – Thomas Jefferson, 1804
The states had a long time to correct the problem and when they decided to act it was called the American Civil War. The People will correct it or they won’t. I don’t expect that the states will try it again.
I have to agree that there needs to be some kind of process to impeach any of the Supreme Court Justices that do not follow the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or the laws derived from those documents. They need to answer to someone rather than sit in their Ivory Tower and ignore the law. Having said that, it should not be an easy process as we don’t want there to be a political fight to impeach any time that someone gets their nose bent just a bit. So, how would that look in real life ?
Technically the constitution does provide for the removal of judges.
In Article 3, Section 1
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…”
No the real question becomes do you really want to open that can of worms. Because if you try to remove the 5 Justices that rendered the Obamacare decision, you had better have a plan to protect the conservative justices on the court when the democrats retaliate.
How do you keep placing Chicago as having horable “anti-gun” laws. Someone really needs to read the law to the fullest. The biggest issue is that we can’t carry in parks and mass transit (you can transport) and non residents are SOL, but at least churches are not gun free zones. And 15 round limits on long guns. The city is shall issue. And we are stand your ground. There hasn’t been any witch hunts involving defensive gun use. Yes its not perfect, but for a Democratic Party controlled city in a democratic state, its not bad at all.
…which is kind of like saying, “for a horrible hell-pit of doom for honorable people, it does have some charm”
What I am saying is shall issue, no handgun restrictions, no gun permit, no gun registration and no duty to retreat.
Speaking of Chicago, whats the deal on that 9% netflix amusement tax?
Same thing they charge for cable TV, its a amusement tax.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
The SCOTUS has been tutti fruitti for a long time now. If strict interpretation of the Constitution and laws had been observed a lot of bogus decisions and government growth would have been shot down throughout American history. Patrick Henry was right about the future of the statist collusionist nature of the Supreme Court.
You killed my Father, prepare to die.
At some point 4GW, will play a role.
Make no mistake.
This is well written and an excellent look at a bigger picture. But I encourage a conversation about what the outcome might be of a constitutional betrayal such as what is anticipated here.
Over 95% of “assault weapon” owners refused to even register themselves in two states when the law said they had to. These states are areas that would normally “roll over” and give up their rights but somehow drew a line in the sand.
So let’s say the SCOTUS does gut the 2A…do you really think Americans will comply? I think it will be the tipping point where we put an end to the slow creeping tyranny that is upon us. This administration has made enemies with our military, police, and most citizens. America is getting tired and history has shown that we truly come alive and unite when faced with big threats or tyranny.
Don’t you think that the SCOTUS knows that 2A can quickly be the tipping point that will wake up the millions of patriots who are normally busy going about caring for their families and pursuing the American dream? I just don’t think they will go there, and if they do…all hell will break loose.
The American people have complied thus far. Our masters know quite well that the People will swallow the poison as long as the dosage is small enough. I had hope that the heat would be turned up too fast and the frog would jump out of the pot. But, I’ve watched for a mighty long time and that pot never boils.
For a long time, SCOTUS refused to hear 2A cases and the liberals promoted the theory of National Guard Gun Control. SCOTUS has not been very gun friendly in my own lifetime.
“It depends on the meaning of the word “is”. Back when president Clinton uttered this now famous phrase the liberals thought he had out smarted those nasty conservatives. Now his example of changing the meaning of a word was given us Obama care. Perhaps we will even loose the second amendment because someone will say “that’s not what the word individual means”.
If they can’t win in the legislative branch, then just change the meaning of a few words in society.
You say that can’t happen here! It already has.
“When I use a word . . . it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice,”‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
’The question is,” said Chief Justice Roberts, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
Perfect.
To be fair regarding the definition of “state”, it is standard around here to use the word statists when referring to big government. So it’s not that big of a stretch to use ” the state” in reference to the federal government.
Never mind that we have videotape of congress and Gruber saying that the state reference was exactly what everybody thought it meant…the states. The statements in the law was put there to be punitive to states who didn’t set up an exchange. They were telling the states that you better set up an exchange because the federals ain’t going to bail you out.
But yeah besides that, state could mean federal.
If given wiggle room, Roberts likes to defer to legislators’ intent. In the recent Obamacare decision, he referred to the point of dispute as “inartful” drafting of the law. That’s less insulting than “piss poor job.” The intent was that the states would create the exchanges to which the subsidies are tied. No one expected that many states would refuse. That bias on Roberts’ part should be encouraging when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. There is plenty of documentation to show that the founding fathers intended private citizens to be well armed.
I won’t disagree that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be protection against an oppressive central government. However, personal defense against criminal assault is more important on a practical, day-to-day basis. An attack on the 2nd Amendment is an attack on the legitimacy of self defense. That’s what really worries me.
Actually both the letter of the law and the intent of the law was that only states that established their own exchanges would get subsidies. The intent was to force Republican governors to establish exchanges otherwise they would pay a price politically. At least that was the reasoning of the Marxists who wrote the law. As has been shown many times Marxist reasoning doesn’t match reality.
Exactly right polecat and the intent was clear.
Roberts blatantly ignored intent and the specific videotape evidence of the ACA architect Gruber.
IMHO…We are in a language transition! The Left have lost the battle so they have changed the meaning of time honored words……saw it coming…
We elect a Pres that is only an ‘executive.’ Unable to make laws or spend money without congressional approval.
The REAL DANGER is the ability to appoint judges…..
I’m afraid none of that matters any longer…..
Doesn’t look like the Left loses much of anything.
I wish conservatives could “lose” SCOTUS rulings like the left supposedly lost.
As for changing the meaning of things….pfffft the Leftists care not.
Truth is not a value of the Left.
I believe Obama will wrangle Lynch into SCOTUS before he departs. Holder could even pop up unexpectedly. As for our next president, it had best not be the C word. To even move back to center we will need a very firm right push.
Dear gsnyder:
Some progressives are already floating the idea of Barack Obama for the Supreme Court. How better to ensure that the damage he does as president is permanent?
Seriously?!?! I hadn’t even thought of that.
“Some legal observers have reasonably said that Roberts’ opinions in those cases appear to have been written by two different people, which is what one might expect when a Supreme Court Justice does not apply the law according to precedent and proper legal analysis.”
Fun fact; the also-controversial Dred Scott decision which directly helped precipitate the Civil War and remains as perhaps the most shameful abandonment of the law by the high court, was found after the fact to have been directly influenced behind closed doors by President Buchanan lobbying the chief justice. It was noted at the time that the chief justice’s opinion seemed poorly conceived and out of character. History does not repeat, but it surely echoes, doesn’t it…
Aye, it does seem so.
I think we need to read the 2nd Amendment as a whole.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A couple notes here.
1) The Militia is every man, woman, and child capable of taking up arms to defend the state.
2) Note that the Militia was intended to fight wars against aggressors either foreign or domestic so intended to engage armies, necessitating military class small arms.
3) The people, not the government are to hold the reserve of weapons for the militia, thereby protecting the people for a tyrannical government either foreign or domestic.
4) Since the constitution is a granting of authority from the citizens of the country to the government of this country, the second amendment doesn’t actually do anything as it doesn’t grant any additional authority to the government. The bill of rights is more of a series of examples of the type of rights that are reserved by the people.
The Supreme Court is just about one decision away from being told by a significant percentage of the citizenry that they simply will not comply.
And that – “I will not comply!” – is likely our most powerful weapon. Imagine a significant percentage of bumpers sporting that message on stickers. Apparently, upstanding members of the population are asserting that they won’t comply with some legislative or judicial law. Once defiance of laws starts in one place (wherever that might be) there is no logical stopping point. Pot; other drugs? Speed limits? Stop signs?
Legislators and the judiciary will have to decide how far they will let this process run. The pot laws are already nullified nation wide. What if the laws baring other drugs were similarly nullified? Would there be a clamor to eliminate the DEA?
Government will have to decide whether it wants to precipitate a civil war – a shooting war – to preserve it’s control over the People; or, whether it is willing to tolerate armed masters in order to treat them as sheep in all other aspects of life.
I am old enough to believe that the 2A will never be revoked or further amended in my lifetime. But that’s because most of my lifetime is behind me.
I really worry about my son’t future freedom though.
I think, when i consider all that is going on here in America, and around the globe as it may affect America, that we won’t reach a point in time when someone asks, “I wonder why we didn’t see this coming?”
Or maybe we have already reached that point.
I was born and raised here and grew up in a time when we all knew we were the best there ever was. Our Fathers, Uncles and older brothers had just saved the world and they did it by force of arms.
I honestly believe that I have a God given right to defend myself and my family. To do this, I have accumulated those tools that I may need to accomplish that. What every bleeding heart liberal in the country needs to realize and take to heart is that I would consider any attempt to remove those tools that I feel I need would be an actual attack on me and my family.
If the nanny State wants to keeping pushing the result is going to be an incredibly strong shove back. How much violence that shove back generates is all up to them.
Right now, “Molon Labe” is just a clever bumper sticker phrase. It would have an entirely different tone when it is uttered in English by well armed Americans who suddenly decide enough is enough.
“The Road to Serfdom”. By Hayek.
Written during WW II. He wrote about the rise of Hitler and how the ground was prepared by social progressive efforts in the decades prior to the great depression.
He saw how the progressive movement with centralized government programs almost demands that the rule of law is ignored and the “interpretation” of what “is” means develops a sense of lawlessness by the government and the courts.
In this atmosphere of rogue government acting outside the rule of law, and the chaos that was created, Hitler simply stepped into the power vortex created by the prior administrations.
Hayek warned that if England and the US went down the socialist route, we could create the same lawless environment where the congress, the executive and the courts would become the tyrants, making up the “law” as they went.
What he warned would happen, is now happening. All we need now is a major crisis, an economic collapse? Major world wide war? And we will see how far down the Rabbit Hole goes as to the recreation of all the horrors of Germany during WWII or the insanity of the French Revolution here in this country.
It’s no surprise. In 1803 the Supreme Court created an unenumerated power for itself. That power was rarely wielded at first. This was a ticking time bomb, guaranteed to one day destroy the Constitution. Since adolescence I argued that we could not rely on a violation of the Constitution to correct other violations of the Constitution. That chicken has now come home to roost.
Corrupt government. Corrupt MSM. Corrupt society. Corrupt institutions of learning. Corrupt churches. Corrupt elections. Corrupt courts. Y’all do the figuring and come to the conclusion that some of us arrived at prior to the 1980s. If these generations don’t work it out, the next ones will have to learn all of this for themselves. However, they will have an even tougher time doing that because they will already be even further indoctrinated away from the truth.
There is no rudder and no star to steer by. The bible, to those in power, is just an old musty book with mythical stories by a bunch of old racist white men.
The constitution, with words no longer immutable, a “living document”, is no longer a guide for us as fallible human beings. It’s words mean what we want it to mean. And human beings are best at rationalizing any decision, if it benefits them personally.
The people, in voting for those that would give them “largess from the public treasury” have gotten exactly what they wanted. At the cost of giving up all pretense of honesty, frugality, responsibility, maturity and a complete embracing of denial of reality.
I can understand why democracies, which we have become, ultimately disolve into a paroxysm self- immolation.
There was a meme going around pushing the notion that the same-sex marriage decision meant SCOTUS would have to allow concealed carry in all 50 states. Not going to happen. SCOTUS doesn’t work from the Constitution, as this article demonstrates, it simply makes the decision it wants to make then finds the reasoning.
Not only will this next election put the people in charge of nominating and voting for another Supreme Court justice. These past 15 years have shown that the swing voters in the black robes swing there vote to apease the person setting in the whitehouse. Or was it just a coincidence that the Heller decision was right leaning during Bush and these recent decision have not went our way at all.
If SCOUTS were only about the Rule of Law then all of the decisions would come back as 9-0 for or against.
Just sayin.
I know Right? How in the hell can I be expected to win the argument around the water cooler with a coworker when the fucking supreme court can’t even figure this shit out.
So, they seem to be using the same definition of ‘state’ that is used in the Second Amendment, indicating ‘nation’.
That’s probably a Good Thing(tm).
“In Obergefell v. Hodges, a 5-4 majority, despite the fact the Constitution is silent on the topic, created a fundamental right to gay marriage and held that the 14th Amendment requires the states to issue marriage licenses and to honor the licenses of those issued by all the states.”
Has anyone ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments? The Constitution doesn’t give us rights. It doesn’t have to be listed in the Bill of Rights to be a right, and this ruling (and others like it) didn’t give anyone any rights.
Hmmm. Hard to argue against that reasoning. Although I suppose it does open the door to all those “right to feel safe” assertions.
Look up “state” in any dictionary and you see that “state” has several definitions including BOTH individual states of a larger governed nation (“the State of Indiana, the State of Bavaria, etc). AND a single government (“the power of the state” etc). It’s rare but Mr. McDaniel is wrong on that. And the Supreme Court is right – like it or not. Even some Republicans have said that marriage is an institution meant to be in support of reproductive rights (and the consequence is having kids who deserve that security). NOT just because of what’s written in some religious document (as Huckabee incorrectly claims). So even “conservatives” are disagreeing with each other on this. And that’s no surprise because many of us know that neither side has an ideology which deals honestly or effectively with reality.
Dear The Defender’s Team:
You are correct that one of the connotations of “state” can be the entire government of the United States. However, the ACA itself was quite clear, as was its architect, the execrable and deceptive Jonathan Gruber, that “states” meant the individual, independent states, and “federal government,” meant just that.
Law should not hinge on every possible denotation or connotation of a word.
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”
–Joseph Stalin
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”
― Vladimir Ilich Lenin
Comments are closed.