I feal a lot better knowing we still have gentlemen in the highest court in the land. The Dems have absolutely no respect for this nation. None at all.
I don't believe there are limits on the second amendment, because that is never implied anywhere! You can't take what the Founders envisioned for the 2nd amendment and superimpose a 21st century "peace-time" spin on it.
The purpose of the second amendment was to give citizenry the right to defend their families and homes from the oppression of a despotic government. The idea is, that if the citizenry are armed the government would think twice about engaging them militarily. In effect, the entire POPULATION becomes a standing militia! (Which is what comprised much of the military during the Revolution!)
In EVERY society where gun rights were stricken the government has always oppressed and murdered its people.
We are trying to apply "limits" on gun ownership living in a relatively peaceful 21st century society. We have never known despotic oppression on this soil.
In those days, the army was weak. The country was young. Gun ownership was a necessity.
Don't think for one second that just because we live in relative peace -- that we no longer live in the days of Indians and red coats -- that OUR OWN government can't/wouldn't oppress us after stripping us of our gun rights. HISTORY has proven time and time again that it will.
We take everything for granted in our culture. All it will take is for the government to strip us of this right, and it's all over...
What is conspicuously absent from Scalia's mindset is the principle of unalienable individual rights. He never says "Is it or isn't it a violation of individual rights?", but instead asks "Is it permitted by the constitution, according to the context of when it was drafted?" - And that, right there is the core problem. Individual rights TRUMP the bloody constitution, OK? I don't give a crap if the constitution says something is or isn't permitted, IF that something is a violation of the unalienable individual rights. Individual rights are THE limiting principle; individual rights are the numero uno most important principle when deciding on laws. A country which recognizes and respects the unalienable individual rights is a country which can be said to be following the objective rule of law; anything else is subjective law, which is incredibly destructive, as we now see today in all its horror.
Gee, and what constitutional limitations are there on the second amendment? A well regulated militia perhaps? Well that would be interesting, since the Founders considered that militia to be the people themselves.
The only obvious limitations would be to keep criminals, and the crazy from legally purchasing a firearm. However no amount of gun control legislation can stop the crazies or the criminals from commiting gun crimes.
Speaking of gun control, how's that working out in Chicago? Newark? NY? DC? Europe? Russia? Mexico?
And speaking of SCOTUS, lets hope that if Romney gets elected, if given the opportunity, he puts another conservative on the bench. Roberts is no longer reliable and is morphing into another Kennedy.
If interested there is a book out on Scalia by a guy named Ring. The book is "Scalia Dissents". More info on Scalia can be found at Ellis Washington's excellent website.
When forming the government the Founders recognized the necessity of creating a system which provided checks and balances. They did this by establishing three distinct and separate branches of government each having powers to check the other. To this end one of the primary functions of the court is to determine whether or not the laws passed by the congress are, in fact, constitutional. Obama's argument that it would be unprecedented for the court to rule against a law passed by congress completely ignores this fact. You would think someone who claimed to be a constitutional lawyer would understand this simple concept. But, apparently he also believes obamacare was passed with an overwhelming majority. I seem to remember a close, bitter battle with senators being bought off for their vote. Either we have been lied to regarding his superior intellect or the man lacks integrity. I'll go with lair. YOU LIE Barrack!
I think that it is possible that this interview is mop up over the AHCA decision, and Roberts certainly wouldn't be the one that they send out. The supreme court is the same as congress, they keep it evenly divided so that they can bounce the blame back and forth. When one has to defect for the good of the establishment, the others ultimately cover for them. Scalia may have dissented, but the next establishment move is on guns, and Scalia left it wide open on regulation.
Edit: I feel like I am being set up for a screwing.
Judge Scalia's response to whether they are political was double speak in that being appointed based on their leanings (rulings) actually renders them political pawns - doesn't it? I think the Supreme Court needs a major overhaul, along with the rest of government. Not sure why they can't be elected by the people and have term limits.
I think that, optimally, a judge should be both a Constitutional originalist, and a textualist, with more emphasis on being an originalist. Anything other than that, and it seems that, inevitably, you're dealing with a judicial activist, which is someone that has no place on the bench of any court.
Man oh man was that fantastic. I would love to hear Mr. Scalia and the "great one" Mark Levin go back and forth and discuss matters of law. I feel so much smarter now though it will be very short lived in my case.
May G-d bless and protect, Justice Scalia
This sermon addresses the qualities that G-d requires in a leader.
The Leadership Crisis in America
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Adrian Rogers looks at Scripture to reveal what qualities God requires of leaders and the choice He respects.
This message references: Proverbs 29:2
Some of the qualities addresses are as follows:
A man of character.
A G-dly man.
A man that is honest.
A man of wisdom.
A discerning man aka knows right from wrong.
A man that is sexually moral.
It is a sermon worth hearing.
Christians, do you think obama posses the qualities of leadership that G-d requires?
Well grace, I think we all know without the list that our current dear leader and all of those who serve him are not Godly leaders, and while I might be in a minority in this thought, perhaps that's exactly why we have the "leaders" we do have.... because we've ignored our Godly heritage. Ah well, I can think of a few who do have those qualities... Allen West comes to mind. :-D
I sincerely hope you're not in a minority AbiC, and don't think you are here.
I have always believed that only in Godless countries could the conceit of mere man foist something as ridiculous as AGW on so many.
And there are plenty more UN plans where that one came from.
Great point, ABC.
I wish Allen West was running for president, I'd vote for him in a minute. He does have all of the qualities that G-d requires of a leader.
I am sorry, Mr. Berkleianus for spelling your name wrong in one of my previous posts. Now I know why, I dropped Latin and replaced it with Spanish. Thanks again, for everything you do to support, Sarah Palin.
Again, I agree with BrianusBerklianus when he states something like,"Sarah Palin, our President." In my view, it has a nice "ring" to it. Thanks Brianus.
Totally agree on the RESTORING LOVE event. There are enough wonderful videos to keep a Sunday eve. hopping RS.
It truly was historic and hopeful....
So does having a corrupt Chief Justice. Who knows about the rest. Scalia left it wide open for regulation. They could easily regulate our gun rights away, and with this new treaty on the table before the election, I expect that we will be having this end up in the supreme court, and they will solidify the right of the State to regulate.
Of course there are limitations to the second amendment, just like there are limitations to the first amendment. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, and you can't start shooting people in that same crowded theater.
As for guns that they couldn't possibly have known about when they wrote the second amendment; Since the second amendment was written to protect us from a tyrannical government and you can't fight a tyrannical with hunting rifles when the government is using state of the art weaponry. The restrictions should be few.
Oops, I think I misunderstood your post Toon. You were implying that we should have the same weaponry as the government, which I whole-heartedly agree with!
You make susch a good point I hope that others bring it up in the media when they discuss this interview. But not holding my breath, this country has been wimpified!
Right, after all Scalia is an Originalist and you can't get more orginal than muskets...and cannons...and bayonets - oh, I better stop :)
With what's going on with HOMELAND SECURITY arming up
and the Department of Education arming up
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-does-department-of-education-need-12-gauge-shotguns (You brat - do your homework or else!)
I think Scalia might want to think this one over
Where can I buy a drone?
I think the bar has been raised against tyranny - This is getting crazy!
It must have something to do with that civilian military force just as powerful and well-funded as our military, they are already building it under the radar.
I live in Oregon, and believe me, all the ranchers and farmers understand full well that the state owns all water. I have a water right on a river, and expect that one day I will have to pay dearly to use it, or keep it. They have been registering wells, supposedly to keep track of where they are at, but most understand that meters are probably coming.
So they can catch outlaws like this >>
He collected rainwater and possbile jail plus fine
BIG BROTHER IS HERE!
After watching almost all of this, Morgan did a much better job. Scoop can you get that interview? It was rerun last Saturday night on CNN? Judge Scalia had the entire hour, and asked better questions. Judge Scalia said that Bush v. Gore was one of the most asked about cases and he tells people to get over it. It would have come out the same way, he also added that Nixon believed he lost in 1960 due to chicanery in Chicago but did not bring it to the Supreme Court as Al Gore did.
I'm sorry if I'm wrong to mention CNN here.
This was a GREAT interview. Justice Scalia reminds me of Mark Levin! I mean you would think they were brothers or something! You know what that say about great minds, they think alike. The only difference between Mark and Justice Scalia is that Mark would never advocated for removing weapons of any type. Everyone knows that its a slippery slope. In addition to that NO one is calling for how mental illness is a common thread among these murders who kill like this and that's something that Romney as identified. The people who would open fire on innocent people using automatic weapons can also do that with a hand gun. Scalia seemed open to evaluating automatic machine guns which is slightly troubling. But, for me this interview took the mystique out of Supreme Court Justices and provided more insight into their thinking and interpretation of the Constitution.
You thought that was a great interview? I thought it was tabloid poo-poo. One brief question about the book, and endless probing into salacious matters trying to get Scalia to say something stupid, based on out-of-context snippets that were already circulating the air waves - like trying to get him to diss Obama.
I guarantee Levin would have conducted a superior interview focused on the technical issues - you know - things people who would actually read the book would be interested in.
CalCoolidge, Scalia's interview took away some of the mystery surrounding the Justices and I thought that was enlightening. We all know their opinions from their writings but it also helps to see the human side in him connecting by speaking and doing interviews in public forms so I thought it was enlightening. I also thought he portrayed Chief Justice Roberts as a wavering fool when Roberts call the penalty a tax and ruled with the majority and Scalia said that Justices cannot put something in a law that is not there and in this case he thought Roberts did that. Absolutely Levin would have conducted a far superior and fabulous interview because he knows the law and Constitution better than the Justices. But we all know hardly any on the Justices would have given an interview to Mark Levin.
How did Scalia portray someone else as waivering when stating that he himself has changed his mind (waivered) even during the process of writing the majority opinion?
I wouldn't confuse the facetthat Scalia could handle Wallace's cross-examination with the fact that Wallace did not demonstrate that he had even read the book.
Putting those two ideas together, I'd like to ask Scalia about his "waivering" or flip-flop in his book: the one in which he has decided after 50 years of being a lawyer that Wickerd v Filburn was wrongly decided, because as as the originalist or textualist. he claims to be, it didn't take me 50 seconds to figure out the court was wrong.