Vegas Free-for-All - Things that make Fonzie say, "hmmmm...."

Dan Svatass

Feb 7, 2013
9:14am

(T)he Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment , the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”. But the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendment is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements.

. . .

(T)he words “the people” in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.

. . .

As used in the Second Amendment , the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.

Justice Stevens

arshaleign

Feb 7, 2013
9:24am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Justice Scalia

Switchblade knives? Hand grenades? Full auto machine guns with armor piercing, "cop-killer," bullets? If Scalia can't say yes to all of the above, then he's a fraud. If he does say yes, then he's just evil.

Then again, Scalia is the guy who said that corporations are people, and that homosexuality can be prosecuted criminally. I'd be embarrassed to quote him.

snidely333

Feb 7, 2013
9:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
(T)he Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment , the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”. But the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendment is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements.

. . .

(T)he words “the people” in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.

. . .

As used in the Second Amendment , the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.

Justice Stevens

You can keep posting dissenting opinions which merely rehash the Heller decision. You align with the dissenters. Clearly, you are not alone with you opinions have some bright legal minds to back you up. However, SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. The majority of the SCOTUS justices and I do not agree with your arguments.

Dan Svatass

Feb 7, 2013
9:33am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
You can keep posting dissenting opinions which merely rehash the Heller decision. You align with the dissenters. Clearly, you are not alone with you opinions have some bright legal minds to back you up. However, SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. The majority of the SCOTUS justices and I do not agree with your arguments.

I am aware I have permission to post, thank you.

Yes, in this case I find the reasoning of the 4 minority justices in Heller more persuasive. I accept that the 5 member majority carried the day, I am not unaware of how things work. On what the court did in Heller smart people can fairly disagree.

I look forward to the day when we again honor the framers' intent in passing the Second Amendment, I think they got it right, but that the court recently got it wrong. That happens sometimes.

Meanwhile, we'll just keep banging out caskets and digging holes.

alanleroy

Feb 7, 2013
9:36am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
(T)he Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment , the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”. But the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendment is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements.

. . .

(T)he words “the people” in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.

. . .

As used in the Second Amendment , the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.

Justice Stevens

Penn and Teller are on your side too. That convinced me. It's not good for my Militia recruiting though. I am a Militia of one.

Don

Feb 7, 2013
11:11am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
So far as DonDiego knows no Federal Judge has discovered a Constitutional Right to same-sex marriage, deferring to State Court rulings on the matter. So far.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with Perry v. Brown, a 2012 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (a federal court) which did precisely that. After a lower federal court did so too.

In Perry, the court found that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection rights afforded all Americans by the US Constitution.

This Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is now being reviewed by the US Supreme Court.

However, Chicoot overstates the conclusion of Perry v Brown. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a very narrow decision based upon the rights of those same-sex couples who had already been married in California during the interval after the California Supreme Court ruled they could marry and before California's citizens passed Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage .

As the Washington Post summarized: "The panel took a narrow route in knocking down California’s prohibition and did not address whether same-sex couples have a federal constitutional right to marry."
And the Post adds: " . . . that the [US] Supreme Court could settle California’s same-sex-marriage issue in an equally narrow way, without confronting whether there is a constitutional right to marry.
Ref: The Washington Post

So, DonDiego asserts that, as he stated earlier: "So far as DonDiego knows no Federal Judge has discovered a Constitutional Right to same-sex marriage."

Oh, . . . and, as DonDiego suggested earlier, there are folks who'll misinterpret matters intentionally to support an opinion already held.

n.b. DonDiego cannot know how the US Supreme Court will rule. He is just presenting things as they stand now. And DonDiego has not expressed his opinion on the matter; it is not something over which he loses any sleep.

Dan Svatass

Feb 7, 2013
11:49am

Block User

The only power the federal courts have to review state laws is for compliance with the limits placed on states by the U.S. Constitution. If the state law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution, the federal court must uphold it.

In Perry, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibited the State of California from denying homosexual couples the right to marry. It upheld the decision of the lower court, which said so expressly. Read it yourself. As Judge Walker put it:

Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

The judge considered Prop 8 in light of the U.S. Constitution and found them incompatible.

I can't explain that Washington Post news piece. Perhaps it was written in haste shortly after the decision was issued without fully appreciating what the decision was. Ted Olsen and David Boies are constitutional law experts, and after two wins in federal courts in California, their success has put the power of states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry squarely before the Supreme Court

Two federal courts by my count, more to come.

hoops2

Feb 7, 2013
11:06pm

Block User

The 9th circuit is the most overeruled circuit

Dan Svatass

Feb 8, 2013
1:45am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The 9th circuit is the most overeruled circuit

Leave it to hoops2 to muck up a good conversation with falsehoods he once heard Rush Limbaugh spew.

As even Fox News has reported,decisions from the Ninth Circuit are reversed less frequently than decisions from other Courts of Appeal:

Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th Circuit decisions actually have a better-than-average showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent.

For the most recent completed term, the Supreme Court reversed a higher percentage of decisions from the 2nd, 6th, and 11th Circuits than it did from the 9th.

But why bother knowing anything when you can just repeat Rush Limbaugh?

hoops2

Feb 8, 2013
2:35am

Block User

Leave to chilly to cherry pick their one good year.

From 2001 to 2008 the 9th circuit had 80% of it's cases overturned, the highest rate of any of the circuit courts

«‹6 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now