Heller Struck Down

[Kathianne]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns&printer=1;_ylt=An7M0s.DSjot2lxYNnZqUo5Aw_IE


Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact...

[Nukeman]

What a great day!!!:clap::clap::salute:

At least 5 of the Justices have a brain! This is great news for the citizen of this great country......:dance::dance:

[glockmail]

I can defend myself and my family in DC- yo baby! :clap::clap::clap:

[Monkeybone]

so should i go and shoot my guns into the air in praise to the gun lust god?:laugh2:

[crin63]

Praise The Lord and pass the ammunition!!!

What a beautiful day!!!!

Thank God for the appointments of Roberts and Alito. :clap::clap::clap:


:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

[Nukeman]

Here's a link to the ruling...

Great read with LOTS of hystorical reference and data....


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Joe Steel]

An example of judicial activism of the most outrageous kind.

[hjmick]

:lmao:

[Yurt]

:lmao:

that is funny coming from joe steele who supports things like roe v. wade, you have the right to kill your baby, but not carry a gun

[Nukeman]

An example of judicial activism of the most outrageous kind.
Did you even read the decision? You are such a one trick pony its laughable. Take the freaking time and READ the f 'ing paper ALL 157 pages of it , Maybe YOU will even learn something. MORON:slap:

[Little-Acorn]

In his Opinion of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that this ruling does not affect other state and city restrictions on machine guns, carrying in "sensitive places" like schools, etc. But he did not say the ruling affirmed them. He basically left those issues open to be defined by subsequent cases. Good for him.

My favorite part of the Opinion, was where he said that the first part of the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,") had NO EFFECT on the second part ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). He explicitly pointed out that the first part was merely an explanation, and neither restricted nor expanded the second part, which was a COMMAND.

In other words, he has finally put to rest the hysterical claims of the anti-gun-rights folks, that the 2nd only protects military weapons, or people who are in a militia or other military group.

He has done more than simply state that the DC gun law was unconstitutional. He has laid the groundwork for challenging nearly every so-called "gun control" law in the country. The significance of this cannot be overestimated.

This ruling does not invalidate any of those other laws singlehandedly. It is careful to invalidate only the one law in DC.

But in subsequent cases, pro-gun-rights people can now point to a Supreme Court precedent that says the 2nd amendment means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away or restricted. Period. No more silly talk about militias, or military membership, or even a "sporting purpose" test, which Scalia also shot down elsewhere in his Opinion.

Though it technically affects only one law in one locality, it is a landmark ruling. And it signals the beginning of the end for the unconstitutional "gun control" laws that have disarmed innocent citizens while leaving lawbreakers armed, for decades.

[Joe Steel]

that is funny coming from joe steele who supports things like roe v. wade, you have the right to kill your baby, but not carry a gun

1. I' ve never posted anything here on Roe v Wade or abortion. You don't know my opinion on those subjects.

2. This decision actually is very encouraging. It pretty much does away with any vestige of "enumerated powers" and "strict construction." Judges now can add whatever they wish to the Constitution.

[red states rule]

What should bother people is there were 4 Judges who ruled law abiding people do NOT have the right to defend themselves

[Little-Acorn]

that is funny coming from joe steele who supports things like roe v. wade, you have the right to kill your baby, but not carry a gun

Many things coming from little joesteel are funny, if you have nothing better to do than read his blurts. On the rare occasions when I do, I sometimes find them idly entertaining.

ON EDIT:
A late addition to his humor roster is the contention that judges can now add whatevrer they want to the Constitution... and he then calls this "encouraging".

He clearly does not believe much of what he writes, but merely writes whatever he feels will generate the most commotion. My son does the same thing, fairly frequently, yelling and screaming endlessly when he doesn't get his way, and keeping it up long after he has forgotten what it was he wanted.

But my son is two years old. What's little joesteel's excuse?

[crin63]

Hey Joe are you an ironworker?

[hjmick]

What should bother people is there were 4 Judges who ruled law abiding people do NOT have the right to defend themselves

Yep. Just one judge away from losing a basic right the Founding Fathers felt was important.

[Joe Steel]

Did you even read the decision? You are such a one trick pony its laughable. Take the freaking time and READ the f 'ing paper ALL 157 pages of it , Maybe YOU will even learn something. MORON:slap:

Why bother dumbass?

After the first few paragraphs, the conclusion is clear; it's nothing but a regurgitation of all the rightwing, gun nut drivel we've endured for years.

[red states rule]

Why bother dumbass?

After the first few paragraphs, the conclusion is clear; it's nothing but a regurgitation of all the rightwing, gun nut drivel we've endured for years.

You have a choice. If you own a gun, and some punk breaks into your home - you can shoot him and protect your life and property

If you don't because the goverment decide you can't, the cops can take a pic of your dead body

[Nukeman]

Why bother dumbass?

After the first few paragraphs, the conclusion is clear; it's nothing but a regurgitation of all the rightwing, gun nut drivel we've endured for years.

Because "DUMBASS" if you botherd you may learn something, especially the hystorical basis and thought process of the country at the time. what more could I possible expect form someone such as you. You are so full of yourself and everyone else is just wrong. Whos the DUMBASS

[red states rule]

An attempt by some to leave the American family defenseless and unarmed was defeated!

Now it's time to do something that will make a difference, enforce existing guns laws and get them out of the hands of felons

[red states rule]

More double talk from the messiah. Does anyone know what the hell is saying or where he stands on the issue?


DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common sense, effective safety measures.

"The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.

"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

"As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen."

"Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2632797920080626?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10216

[hjmick]

More double talk from the messiah. Does anyone know what the hell he is saying or where he stands on the issue?


DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common sense, effective safety measures.

"The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.

"Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

"As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen."

"Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2632797920080626?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10216

Yes. He is saying whatever he has to in order to get elected.

[red states rule]

Yes. He is saying whatever he has to in order to get elected.

As Rush said, Obama has a bad case of Kerryitis

[avatar4321]

An example of judicial activism of the most outrageous kind.

No. It's just an example that 5 out of 9 people know how to read.

[avatar4321]

Why bother dumbass?

After the first few paragraphs, the conclusion is clear; it's nothing but a regurgitation of all the rightwing, gun nut drivel we've endured for years.

Joe doesnt like this decision because its upholding the Constitution by keeping power with the people rather than the government.

If it empowers government, Joe likes it.

[red states rule]

Joe doesnt like this decision because its upholding the Constitution by keeping power with the people rather than the government.

If it empowers government, Joe likes it.

I'm still pissed off about the child rape decision, but at least now we're still assured our right to blow the sick bastard away ourselves if we want

[Kathianne]

I'm enjoying Daley's rants. On the local radio I heard an attorney say he expected a case to be brought within 24 hours:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story


Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
High court strikes down Washington D.C. law in ruling that could have Chicago implications

Melissa Patterson and Jeff Coen

Chicago Tribune reporters

12:09 PM CDT, June 26, 2008
Click here to find out more!

An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.

The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.

Chicago's handgun ban, which has lasted for more than a quarter-century, came under threat earlier in the day when the Supreme Court decided that Washington D.C.'s law against handgun ownership is unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting. The decision, which had been expected, is a win for gun-rights advocates and provides a better definition of the rights of Americans to own firearms.

Illinois gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance.

Other city officials said they felt confidant that challenge would fail.

"We are confident that this does not invalidate Chicago's ordinance at this point," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city Law Department.
...

[red states rule]

I'm enjoying Daley's rants. On the local radio I heard an attorney say he expected a case to be brought within 24 hours:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story

and this one

CNN: Supreme Court ‘Kills’ DC Handgun Ban, Slants Toward Gun Victim
By Matthew Balan | June 26, 2008 - 13:36 ET

In anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of DC handgun ban on Thursday, CNN’s "Newsroom" program ran a report on both the sides of the gun case, in which the pro-gun control advocate was given twice the amount of air time as the gun rights advocate. The report, by CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena, ran twice within 20 minutes; first, at the top of the 10 am hour of "Newsroom," minutes before the decision was released, and then immediately after the news of the decision broke.

In addition to this, when the 5-4 decision upholding the lower court’s finding that the ban was unconstitutional, the "Newsroom" program initially ran a graphic that read, "Supreme Ct. Kills Handgun Ban: Overrules DC Law." The graphic ran just under a minute until being replaced by another that read, "Supreme Ct. Overrules Gun Ban: Overrules DC Law Forbidding Handguns."

Just over an hour after the Supreme Court’s ruling came down, near the bottom half of the 11 am Eastern hour of "Newsroom," CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, when asked about the local impact of the decision, snarked that "the communities that care about safety and communities that don't want the bad effects of guns will try to rewrite their regulations in line with what they think the Court decided."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/06/26/cnn-supreme-court-kills-dc-handgun-ban-slants-toward-gun-victim

[Yurt]

1. I' ve never posted anything here on Roe v Wade or abortion. You don't know my opinion on those subjects.

2. This decision actually is very encouraging. It pretty much does away with any vestige of "enumerated powers" and "strict construction." Judges now can add whatever they wish to the Constitution.

so you do not support roe v wade, you think it should be overturned?

yes or no

[hjmick]

The very idea that banning guns will have an effect on their criminal use is simply idiotic.

[red states rule]

The very idea that banning guns will have an effect on their criminal use is simply idiotic.

Can you see what could happen if Obama gets to pick 3 of 4 USSC Justices?
We will be stripped not only of our gun rights, buit many others as well

[Kathianne]

1. I' ve never posted anything here on Roe v Wade or abortion. You don't know my opinion on those subjects.

2. This decision actually is very encouraging. It pretty much does away with any vestige of "enumerated powers" and "strict construction." Judges now can add whatever they wish to the Constitution.

Actually here, you insinuate McCain is 'dangerous' because he may appoint justices that would over turn:

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=262366&postcount=4

and here you seem to see Roe as 'Constitutional' because the SCOTUS says it is. While I would contend that Heller is a more constructionist ruling, you seem to imply it's the same thing:

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=112151&postcount=7

[stephanie]

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.

George Mason.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a FREE country..

James Madison.

[hjmick]

Actually here, you insinuate McCain is 'dangerous' because he may appoint justices that would over turn:

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=262366&postcount=4

and here you seem to see Roe as 'Constitutional' because the SCOTUS says it is. While I would contend that Heller is a more constructionist ruling, you seem to imply it's the same thing:

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=112151&postcount=7


1. I' ve never posted anything here on Roe v Wade or abortion. You don't know my opinion on those subjects.

2. This decision actually is very encouraging. It pretty much does away with any vestige of "enumerated powers" and "strict construction." Judges now can add whatever they wish to the Constitution.

In the words of our Founding Fathers:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/hjmc3rd/hahaThouPWNED.jpg

[Joe Steel]

You have a choice. If you own a gun, and some punk breaks into your home - you can shoot him and protect your life and property

If you don't because the goverment decide you can't, the cops can take a pic of your dead body

That's not the issue.

Gun rights may be created by law according to the will of the people. The US Constitution doesn't do it. The RATS got it wrong.

[Joe Steel]

so you do not support roe v wade, you think it should be overturned?

yes or no

Rights are not absolute. The choice to have an abortion is like the choice to have a gun; it should be regulated by the community.

[red states rule]

That's not the issue.

Gun rights may be created by law according to the will of the people. The US Constitution doesn't do it. The RATS got it wrong.

I am thankful for this ruling. The breath for freedom and individual rights, prevails to see another day.

The reality is, we are but one heartbeat away from the court being dominated by the extreme left wing of this country

[DragonStryk72]

An example of judicial activism of the most outrageous kind.

You mean upholding the Constitution? How is that activism? Explain how this ruling in any way represents anything less than the Supreme Court doing its actual job.

[DragonStryk72]

1. I' ve never posted anything here on Roe v Wade or abortion. You don't know my opinion on those subjects.

2. This decision actually is very encouraging. It pretty much does away with any vestige of "enumerated powers" and "strict construction." Judges now can add whatever they wish to the Constitution.

He.... didn't add anything, Joe, he enforced the existant law.

[DragonStryk72]

That's not the issue.

Gun rights may be created by law according to the will of the people. The US Constitution doesn't do it. The RATS got it wrong.

But the law isn't being passed by the will of the people, in truth. It is being passed by legislatures. The Supreme Court acts a check to this, so that a state cannot erode the constitutionally guaranteed rights of its citizenry.

[Yurt]

Rights are not absolute. The choice to have an abortion is like the choice to have a gun; it should be regulated by the community.

kathianne pwned you already, she showed you that you have supported roe v wade

and you did not answer my question...

do you support roe v wade or should it be overturned? roe v wade is a court decision that made it legal to have abortions, and you don't call that judicial activism?

[Kathianne]

kathianne pwned you already, she showed you that you have supported roe v wade

and you did not answer my question...

do you support roe v wade or should it be overturned? roe v wade is a court decision that made it legal to have abortions, and you don't call that judicial activism?

Do you honestly think either will be addressed. Not in our lifetimes. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Do you honestly think either will be addressed. Not in our lifetimes. :laugh2:

i'm a highlander

http://www.highlanders.co.nz/images/highlander_resam.jpg

[avatar4321]

i'm a highlander

http://www.highlanders.co.nz/images/highlander_resam.jpg

There can be only one.

[crin63]

Rights are not absolute.


Are you kidding me! If their not absolute then what are they, privileges?

In the jurisprudence and the law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

[Joe Steel]

Actually here, you insinuate McCain is 'dangerous' because he may appoint justices that would over turn:

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=262366&postcount=4

and here you seem to see Roe as 'Constitutional' because the SCOTUS says it is. While I would contend that Heller is a more constructionist ruling, you seem to imply it's the same thing:

http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=112151&postcount=7

Nonsense.

Those postings aren't about Roe v Wade. They're about other things and merely mention the case.

[Joe Steel]

You mean upholding the Constitution? How is that activism? Explain how this ruling in any way represents anything less than the Supreme Court doing its actual job.

Fat Tony didn't uphold the Constitution. He threw-out part of it. The decision hinges on ignoring half of the Second Amendment. That's not upholding anything except Scalia's political extremism.

[Joe Steel]

He.... didn't add anything, Joe, he enforced the existant law.

Fat Tony created a right where none existed based only on his perverted sense of what the law ought to be.

[Joe Steel]

Are you kidding me! If their not absolute then what are they, privileges?



Better address your question to the Supreme Court. They created an individual right to guns based on the Second Amendment. But, as I understand the decision, despite the Amendment's prohibition of infringement of the right, the Court would allow the right to be regulated. That's not an absolute right.

[diuretic]

Are you kidding me! If their not absolute then what are they, privileges?

In the jurisprudence and the law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

All rights have limits. If not then they become mere licence.

[Little-Acorn]

Fat Tony didn't uphold the Constitution. He threw-out part of it. The decision hinges on ignoring half of the Second Amendment. That's not upholding anything except Scalia's political extremism.

Scalia explained clearly and in detail, both parts of the 2nd amendment and used extensive historical references to back up his arguments. His case for positing that the first part of the 2nd amendment does not qualify or restrict the command that the RPKBA cannot be infringed, is well-reasoned and airtight.

And here we have little joesteel putting his hands over his ears, completely ignoring the many pages of fact and reason presented by Scalia, and squalling "No it isn't! No it isn't! I can't hear you! Waaaaahhhh....".

As I said earlier, little joe can be entertaining at times, if you ignore his dull repetitiveness. :lol:

[Joe Steel]

Scalia explained clearly and in detail, both parts of the 2nd amendment and used extensive historical references to back up his arguments. His case for positing that the first part of the 2nd amendment does not qualify or restrict the command that the RPKBA cannot be infringed, is well-reasoned and airtight.

Airtight?

No.

Air-headed.

Scalia can present whatever sophistry he wishes but it won't hide the inescapable fact he had to throw-out half of the Second Amendment to get to the part he needed to create the right he wanted; and that's a violation of one of the first rules of construction -- every part of a text has to be given meaning. You don't get to pick the parts you like.

[Little-Acorn]

Airtight?

No.

Air-headed.

Scalia can present whatever sophistry he wishes but it won't hide the inescapable fact he had to throw-out half of the Second Amendment to get to the part he needed to create the right he wanted; and that's a violation of one of the first rules of construction -- every part of a text has to be given meaning. You don't get to pick the parts you like.

Translation:
Here we have little joesteel putting his hands over his ears, completely ignoring the many pages of fact and reason presented by Scalia, and squalling "No it isn't! No it isn't! I can't hear you! Waaaaahhhh....".

Or perhaps little joesteel thinks he can pick only the parts of the opinion he likes.

As I said earlier, little joe can be entertaining at times, but you have to ignore his dull repetitiveness and glaring contradictions. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much.

[Yurt]

Fat Tony didn't uphold the Constitution. He threw-out part of it. The decision hinges on ignoring half of the Second Amendment. That's not upholding anything except Scalia's political extremism.

exactly how...i think you are ignoring the plain meaning of the words and if you actually read the opinion, scalia uses context to understand the framers intent, whereas you only see your way and not the way the framers intended...

if the framers only wanted militia to have arms, why insert the word "individual" and not simply repeat militia? because it is clear they intended the individual to have rights :poke:

[Little-Acorn]

if the framers only wanted militia to have arms, why insert the word "individual" and not simply repeat militia? because it is clear they intended the individual to have rights :poke:

Do you mean, why did they insert "the people"?

It's used in other placs in the document, and clearly refers to individuals, NOT a state or government organization.

littlejoe has been told this many times, of course. But he can only continue making arguments if he keeps ignoring it. Not much point in telling him what he already knows, if he's alrady decided to ignore it....... :cheers2:

[Yurt]

Do you mean, why did they insert "the people"?

It's used in other placs in the document, and clearly refers to individuals, NOT a state or government organization.

littlejoe has been told this many times, of course. But he can only continue making arguments if he keeps ignoring it. Not much point in telling him what he already knows, if he's alrady decided to ignore it....... :cheers2:

ooops, i did, like you i have learned that people= individuals and skipped a step. other than that, my post still stands, if they wanted militia only, they could simply have said militia and not people.

[Jagger]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored by a notorious judicial activist, Justice Scalia, announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.


The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.

Scalia is mistaken. The meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction didn't include any rule which dictated that a legal instrument was to be understood according the the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the generation that produced the instrument.

Scalia is an activist. He doesn't want to be bound by the rules of construction as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted, because they won't produce results that square with his personal views.he wants. So, he digs up some nonsense he found in the dicta of an 1930's judicial opinion.

He does this merely to have a pretext to substitute his personal opinions for the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Second Amendment, in the name of the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens.

[avatar4321]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored by a notorious judicial activist, Justice Scalia, announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

[INDENT][I]The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.

Scalia is mistaken. The meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as were understood and recognized as just and valid, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction didn't include any rule which dictated that a legal instrument was to be understood according the the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the generation that produced the instrument.

That's because it's a given that any law made is going to be understandable. If you have an law that can't be understood than what the hell is the point of it?

[Jagger]

That's because it's a given that any law made is going to be understandable. If you have an law that can't be understood than what the hell is the point of it? At the time the Second Amendment was made, there were well established universally accepted common law rules of construction that were to be used to interpret laws. The five basic common law rules of construction can be found on page 59 of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

In addition, there is an abundance of evidence that the lawmakers took for granted that those same rules of construction applied to the Constitution. Would you like to see some of it?

[LOki]

Fat Tony didn't uphold the Constitution. He threw-out part of it.Which part?


The decision hinges on ignoring half of the Second Amendment.Which half?

[Hobbit]

At the time the Second Amendment was made, there were well established universally accepted common law rules of construction that were to be used to interpret laws. The five basic common law rules of construction can be found on page 59 of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

In addition, there is an abundance of evidence that the lawmakers took for granted that those same rules of construction applied to the Constitution. Would you like to see some of it?

So now we're expected to believe that the Constitution was just an addendum to the English laws that the founding fathers risked everything they had to escape? That's like claiming Taiwanese law is just an addendum to the laws of Red China.


Which part?

Which half?

The part on the back of the Constitution in invisible ink that only Joe Steel can see that states that they messed up when writing the Bill of Rights and that the government should have pretty much unlimited power and that the second amendment really only applies to professional soldiers.

[LOki]

So now we're expected to believe that the Constitution was just an addendum to the English laws that the founding fathers risked everything they had to escape? That's like claiming Taiwanese law is just an addendum to the laws of Red China.I'm not sure he's saying that, Hobbit, but I'm also pretty sure he has no idea what he's talking about either:
"BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it."The federal government's interest in recognizing the right enumerated in the Second Amendment, was to insure that the People were sufficiently prepared in arms to secure a free state--from the abuses appurtenent to an occupational army, whether that army is foreign or otherwise.


The part on the back of the Constitution in invisible ink that only Joe Steel can see that states that they messed up when writing the Bill of Rights and that the government should have pretty much unlimited power and that the second amendment really only applies to professional soldiers.I'm just waiting for him, or this Jagger fellow, to bring up "term of art" again--I just don't tire of punking that obviously desperate bullshit.

[Little-Acorn]

[quote=Sir William Blackstone]"BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it."
And notice that Blackstone specifically said that this test was only to be used "when the words are dubious".

But the words in the 2nd amendment are not at all dubious. The vocabulary and usage were commonly used in that day, and quite clear. In modern language, the 2nd says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary individuals to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be restricted or taken away."

When Blackstone's test is used, it is clear that the people who wrote the 2nd intended it to guarantee the right or ordinary people to own and carry. But there's no reason to use that test in the first place, since the words are not dubious, they are clear.

Little joesteel is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't here. But he cannot (or will not) recognize that, since "damned" is his normal everyday state. A fish does not know it is wet; just as little joesteel doesn't know he is wrong.

[Jagger]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of D. C v. Heller(2008), authored by Justice A. Scalia, the notorious judicial activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.


The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.
Scalia is a judicial activist. He needs to go back to law school and learn about the well established common law method of interpreting laws existent at the time the Constitution was made.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United State Supreme Court, knew that the "ordinary rules for construction" should "decide" the "sense" in which the words of the Constitution "are to be understood."
.

The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

--U. S. Supreme Chief Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) interpreting "that part of the second section [of Article II of the U. S. Constitution] which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State."

Scalia needs to resign from the Court if he's not going to interpret the Constitution according to the well established common law method of interpreting laws existent at the time the Constitution.

[glockmail]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of D. C v. Heller(2008), authored by Justice A. Scalia, the notorious judicial activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.


The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.
Scalia is a judicial activist. He needs to go back to law school and learn about the well established common law method of interpreting laws existent at the time the Constitution was made.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United State Supreme Court, knew that the "ordinary rules for construction" should "decide" the "sense" in which the words of the Constitution "are to be understood."
.

The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

--U. S. Supreme Chief Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) interpreting "that part of the second section [of Article II of the U. S. Constitution] which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State."

Scalia needs to resign from the Court if he's not going to interpret the Constitution according to the well established common law method of interpreting laws existent at the time the Constitution.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. :pee:

[Jagger]

...we're expected to believe that the Constitution was just an addendum to the English laws that the founding fathers risked everything they had to escape? All I expect you to believe is two things. The first thing is that there were well established universally accepted common law rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made.

At the time the U. S. Constitution was made, the only law book that most American lawyers and judges had access to was Blackstone's famous Commentaries on the laws of England. Blackstone's great contribution was to systematize and organize the law by subject, which made it possible for a lawyer or judge to quickly and easily find the law on a particular subject.

Presented below are a "few" of the learned judge's "observations concerning the interpretation of laws."


When any doubt arose upon the construction of the Roman laws, the usage was to state the case to the emperor in writing, and take his opinion upon it. This was certainly a bad method of interpretation. To interrogate the legislature to decide particular disputes, is not only endless, but affords great room for partiality and oppression. The answers of the emperor were called his rescripts, and these had in succeeding cases the force of perpetual laws; though they ought to be carefully distinguished, by every rational civilian, from those general constitutions, which had only the nature of things for their guide. The emperor Macrinus, as his historian Capitolinus informs us, had once resolved to abolish these rescripts, and retain only the general edicts: he could not bear that the hasty and crude answers of such princes as Commodus and Caracalla should be reverenced as laws. But Justinian thought otherwise,[25] and he has preserved them all. In like manner the canon laws, or decretal epistles of the popes, are all of them rescripts in the strictest sense. Contrary to all true forms of reasoning, they argue from particulars to generals.

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. Let us take a short view of them all.

1. Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorf,[26] which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon. Again; terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science. So in the act of settlement, where the crown of England is limited "to the princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being protestants," it becomes necessary to call in the assistance of lawyers, to ascertain the precise idea of the words "heirs of her body;" which in a legal sense comprize only certain of her lineal descendants.

2. If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point.[27]

Thus, when the law of England declares murder to be felony without benefit of clergy, we must resort to the same law of England to learn what the benefit of clergy is: and when the common law censures simoniacal contracts, it affords great light to the subject to consider what the canon law has adjudged to be simony.[28]

3. As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

4. As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf,[29] which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.

5. But, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease with it. An instance of this is given in a case put by Cicero, or whoever was the author of the treatise inscribed to Herennius.[30] There was a law, that those who in a storm forsook the ship, should forfeit all property therein; and that the ship and lading should belong entirely to those who staid in it. In a dangerous tempest all the mariners forsook the ship, except only one sick passenger, who by reason of his disease was unable to get out and escape. By chance the ship came safe to port. The sick man kept possession, and claimed the benefit of the law. Now here all the learned agree, that the sick man is not within the reason of the law; for the reason of making it was, to give encouragement to such as should venture their lives to save the vessel: but this is a merit, which he could never pretend to, who neither staid in the ship upon that account, nor contributed any thing to its preservation.[31]
--Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the laws of England; Book I Part I Section II Starting on Page 59

[Yurt]

All I expect you to believe is two things. The first thing is that there were well established universally accepted common law rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made.

At the time the U. S. Constitution was made, the only law book that most American lawyers and judges had access to was Blackstone's famous Commentaries on the laws of England. Blackstone's great contribution was to systematize and organize the law by subject, which made it possible for a lawyer or judge to quickly and easily find the law on a particular subject.



the common law of england was not universally accepted, in fact, france had its own common law. while english common law had great influence in the creation of our "common law", to suggest that english common law greatly influenced the constitution is a far stretch, bording on falsehood.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, so, accord to Jagger, while our forefathers were busy crafting a brand new system of government, one that had never been seen before, they basically just cribbed off the English and the Romans? Maybe, just maybe, they made the Constitution simple and easy to read for the express purpose of getting away from the NEED for things like Blackstone's book?

[DragonStryk72]

Now, in my personal opinion, we should start forming up militias. I mean, they did say that a well-regulated militia was necessary, so we should be doing it.

[Jagger]

...notice that Blackstone specifically said that this test was only to be used "when the words are dubious".

You're correct, dude. The fifth rule of construction is not to be applied unless the ambiguity in the language being interpreted was not resolved by the first four rules. One of the things judicial activists often do is to jump the first four rules to get to the rule regarding "reason and spirit of the law", because it allows they more leeway to inject their personal views.


But the words in the 2nd amendment are not at all dubious. The Second Amendment is ambiguous because the words "well" "regulated", "militia", "necessary, "security", "free", "state, "right", "people", "keep, "bear" and "arms" had more than one meaning at the time the Amendment was made.


The vocabulary and usage were commonly used in that day
The phrase "keep and bear arms" was novel. It had never before appeared in an English or American law.


and quite clear.
According to some of those who actually framed them, the twelve amendments proposed to the States were "calculated to amuse, or rather to deceive", were "so mutilated & gutted that in fact they are good for nothing" or would "do more harm than benefit." One said that to find the words used in the proposed amendments, "the English language has been carefully culled to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!"


In modern language, the 2nd says, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary individuals to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be restricted or taken away." Did you use any particular methodology of interpretation to arrive at that conclusion, or did you just construe it to square with you personal views like Scalia did?


When Blackstone's test is used, it is clear that the people who wrote the 2nd intended it to guarantee the right or ordinary people to own and carry. That's debatable.


But there's no reason to use that test in the first place, since the words are not dubious, they are clear.

The Second Amendment is ambiguous because the words "well" "regulated", "militia", "necessary, "security", "free", "state, "right", "people", "keep, "bear" and "arms" had more than one meaning at the time the Amendment was made.

[LOki]

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of D. C v. Heller(2008), authored by Justice A. Scalia, the notorious judicial activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.


The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
Scalia is a judicial activist. He needs to go back to law school and learn about the well established common law method of interpreting laws existent at the time the Constitution was made.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United State Supreme Court, knew that the "ordinary rules for construction" should "decide" the "sense" in which the words of the Constitution "are to be understood."
.

The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

--U. S. Supreme Chief Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) interpreting "that part of the second section [of Article II of the U. S. Constitution] which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State."

Scalia needs to resign from the Court if he's not going to interpret the Constitution according to the well established common law method of interpreting laws existent at the time the Constitution.


All I expect you to believe is two things. The first thing is that there were well established universally accepted common law rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made.

At the time the U. S. Constitution was made, the only law book that most American lawyers and judges had access to was Blackstone's famous Commentaries on the laws of England. Blackstone's great contribution was to systematize and organize the law by subject, which made it possible for a lawyer or judge to quickly and easily find the law on a particular subject.

Presented below are a "few" of the learned judge's "observations concerning the interpretation of laws."


When any doubt arose upon the construction of the Roman laws, the usage was to state the case to the emperor in writing, and take his opinion upon it. This was certainly a bad method of interpretation. To interrogate the legislature to decide particular disputes, is not only endless, but affords great room for partiality and oppression. The answers of the emperor were called his rescripts, and these had in succeeding cases the force of perpetual laws; though they ought to be carefully distinguished, by every rational civilian, from those general constitutions, which had only the nature of things for their guide. The emperor Macrinus, as his historian Capitolinus informs us, had once resolved to abolish these rescripts, and retain only the general edicts: he could not bear that the hasty and crude answers of such princes as Commodus and Caracalla should be reverenced as laws. But Justinian thought otherwise,[25] and he has preserved them all. In like manner the canon laws, or decretal epistles of the popes, are all of them rescripts in the strictest sense. Contrary to all true forms of reasoning, they argue from particulars to generals.

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. Let us take a short view of them all.

1. Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorf,[26] which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon. Again; terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science. So in the act of settlement, where the crown of England is limited "to the princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being protestants," it becomes necessary to call in the assistance of lawyers, to ascertain the precise idea of the words "heirs of her body;" which in a legal sense comprize only certain of her lineal descendants.

2. If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point.[27]

Thus, when the law of England declares murder to be felony without benefit of clergy, we must resort to the same law of England to learn what the benefit of clergy is: and when the common law censures simoniacal contracts, it affords great light to the subject to consider what the canon law has adjudged to be simony.[28]

3. As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

4. As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf,[29] which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.

5. But, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease with it. An instance of this is given in a case put by Cicero, or whoever was the author of the treatise inscribed to Herennius.[30] There was a law, that those who in a storm forsook the ship, should forfeit all property therein; and that the ship and lading should belong entirely to those who staid in it. In a dangerous tempest all the mariners forsook the ship, except only one sick passenger, who by reason of his disease was unable to get out and escape. By chance the ship came safe to port. The sick man kept possession, and claimed the benefit of the law. Now here all the learned agree, that the sick man is not within the reason of the law; for the reason of making it was, to give encouragement to such as should venture their lives to save the vessel: but this is a merit, which he could never pretend to, who neither staid in the ship upon that account, nor contributed any thing to its preservation.[31]
--Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the laws of England; Book I Part I Section II Starting on Page 59

Explain, accurately and precisely, what your problem with Scalia's interpetation of the 2nd Amendment is--I dare you.

[LOki]

The Second Amendment is ambiguous because the words "well" "regulated", "militia", "necessary, "security", "free", "state, "right", "people", "keep, "bear" and "arms" had more than one meaning at the time the Amendment was made.Were those terms as ambiguous then, as the term "is" is now?

[Jagger]

the common law of england was not universally accepted... All of the thirteen original states enacted "reception" statutes which generally stated that the common law of England was the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.

[Jagger]

france had its own common law.
The French system of law is a civil law system, dude.

[red states rule]

Anti gun nuts have been in a tizzy since the USSC slapped down the DC gun law

Why people have an issue with law abiding citizens protecting themselves and property is amazing

Justice Scalia wrote a brilliant decision, based on the US Constitution and and reason.

[Jagger]

to suggest that English common law greatly influenced the constitution is a far stretch, boarding on falsehood. There is an abundance of evidence that the lawmakers took for granted that the well established common law rules construction applied to the U. S. Constitution. Would you like to see some of it?

[LOki]

There is an abundance of evidence that the lawmakers took for granted that the well established common law rules construction applied to the U. S. Constitution. Would you like to see some of it?Explain, accurately and precisely, what your problem with Scalia's interpetation of the 2nd Amendment is--I dare you. Again. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=281204#post281204)

[red states rule]

Explain, accurately and precisely, what your problem with Scalia's interpetation of the 2nd Amendment is--I dare you. Again. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=281204#post281204)

Here is one insane reaction to Justice Scalia's opinion


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601755.html

[DragonStryk72]

You're correct, dude. The fifth rule of construction is not to be applied unless the ambiguity in the language being interpreted was not resolved by the first four rules. One of the things judicial activists often do is to jump the first four rules to get to the rule regarding "reason and spirit of the law", because it allows they more leeway to inject their personal views.

The Second Amendment is ambiguous because the words "well" "regulated", "militia", "necessary, "security", "free", "state, "right", "people", "keep, "bear" and "arms" had more than one meaning at the time the Amendment was made.

The phrase "keep and bear arms" was novel. It had never before appeared in an English or American law.


According to some of those who actually framed them, the twelve amendments proposed to the States were "calculated to amuse, or rather to deceive", were "so mutilated & gutted that in fact they are good for nothing" or would "do more harm than benefit." One said that to find the words used in the proposed amendments, "the English language has been carefully culled to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!"

Did you use any particular methodology of interpretation to arrive at that conclusion, or did you just construe it to square with you personal views like Scalia did?

That's debatable.

Only if looked at as individual words with no context. However, putting the words into context spells out an easily interpreted sentence structure. This is the main crux of the problem with your proposed interpretation, is that it is entirely devoid of context, very important to the task of reading a document.

Militias were armed by the people who formed them, and were kept only as long as the war was on, to be released back to their normal lives afterward. This means that in order to maintain a militia, which is necessary to our country, the people need the right to keep (own, possess continuously, etc) arms (knives, swords, guns, etc.) and bear (as in bringing to bear, or carry openly) them, thus allowing for a militia to later be assembled quickly at moment of need.

The mistake in Constitutional interpretation is that, unlike "laws", the amendments require an investment of the people themselves to maintain them, thus giving not only giving us the basis of our own laws, but as well giving us a specific list of responsibilities to go along with them. This is where the error lies in "legal" interpretation of constitutional amendments, as they are not merely laws, but guiding posts to the necessities of holding our country together with its ideals intact.

[Jagger]

...while our forefathers were busy crafting a brand new system of government, one that had never been seen before, they basically just cribbed off the English and the Romans? I don't know about all that, Hondo. However, I do know that there is an abundance of historical evidence that the lawmakers kept an eye on the well established common law rules of construction as they chose the words to use in the Constitution. Are you familiar with the evidence?

[Jagger]

Now, in my personal opinion, we should start forming up militias. I mean, they did say that a well-regulated militia was necessary, so we should be doing it. Well regulated militias were necessary if there was no standing army. However, they may no longer be necessary.

If a militia is no longer necessary, the right to keep and bear arms might have terminated, according the rule that when the reason for the law no longer exists, the law terminates. However, that might not be a problem, except in Washington D. C., because the Federal Constitution never gave the Federal Government general power over arms, in the first place; and the 14th Amendment could be reasonably construed to safeguard the citizens of the states from all general civil authority over "arms."

If the people want reasonable restrictions placed on the possession and use of arms, they need to demand that the Constitution be amended, instead of relying on activists judges such as Scalia to legislate those restrictions from the bench.

[Kathianne]

Well regulated militias were necessary if there was no standing army. However, they may no longer be necessary.

If a militia is no longer necessary, the right to keep and bear arms might have terminated, according the rule that when the reason for the law no longer exists, the law terminates. However, that might not be a problem, except in Washington D. C., because the Federal Constitution never gave the Federal Government general power over arms, in the first place; and the 14th Amendment could be reasonably construed to safeguard the citizens of the states from all general civil authority over "arms."

If the people want reasonable restrictions placed on the possession and use of arms, they need to demand that the Constitution be amended, instead of relying on activists judges such as Scalia to legislate those restrictions from the bench.

It seems few want 'reasonable restrictions' placed upon them, so why would they want to modify the constitution or the correct reading from it?

[manu1959]

Well regulated militias were necessary if there was no standing army. However, they may no longer be necessary.

If a militia is no longer necessary, the right to keep and bear arms might have terminated, according the rule that when the reason for the law no longer exists, the law terminates. However, that might not be a problem, except in Washington D. C., because the Federal Constitution never gave the Federal Government general power over arms, in the first place; and the 14th Amendment could be reasonably construed to safeguard the citizens of the states from all general civil authority over "arms."

If the people want reasonable restrictions placed on the possession and use of arms, they need to demand that the Constitution be amended, instead of relying on activists judges such as Scalia to legislate those restrictions from the bench.

i believe they wrote the right to bear arms in so that the new government could not do to the public what the brits did to them....

[Jagger]

Explain, accurately and precisely, what your problem with Scalia's interpetation of the 2nd Amendment is--I dare you. My main problem with his interpretation is the activist methodology he used to obtain it. If he's going to sweep away all the the precedents, and go all the way back to the original text of the Constitution, he should apply the methodology the lawmakers assumed, understood and took for granted would be applied to it, instead of applying a obvious and transparent pretext for judicial activism.

[Jagger]

Only if looked at as individual words with no context. According to the methodology espoused by our favorite judicial activist, the notorious Antonin Scalia, in D. C. v. Heller (2008), there is to be no consideration of context, dude. The only thing Scalia's principle of interpretation allows us to consider is the "normal and ordinary use" of words by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation."

[manu1959]

My main problem with his interpretation is the activist methodology he used to obtain it. If he's going to sweep away all the the precedents, and go all the way back to the original text of the Constitution, he should apply the methodology the lawmakers assumed, understood and took for granted would be applied to it, instead of applying a obvious and transparent pretext for judicial activism.

is not that what the dc judges and lawmakers did when the created the ban.....swept away all previous precedents.....it would seem all that was done was to right a previous wrong....

[Jagger]

i believe they wrote the right to bear arms in so that the new government could not do to the public what the brits did to them.... I don't think the lawmakers made the Second Amendment with the understanding that it would be interpreted according to your beliefs. The evidence overwhelming points toward the lawmakers taking for granted that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution.

[manu1959]

I don't think the lawmakers made the Second Amendment with the understanding that it would be interpreted according to your beliefs. The evidence overwhelming points toward the lawmakers taking for granted that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution.

nor yours......

[Jagger]

is not that what the dc judges and lawmakers did when the created the ban.....swept away all previous precedents...
Hell, if I know, dude. What previous precedents are you talking about?

[Jagger]

nor yours...... You are correct, sir. The lawmakers didn't make the Constitution with the understanding it would be construed according to my personal views, or yours, or Thomas Jefferson's or Justice Scalia's.

The lawmakers, if the historical evidence is a true indicator, assumed, anticipated, understood and/or took for granted that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution, just as they applied to all legal instruments.

[LOki]

My main problem with his interpretation is the activist methodology he used to obtain it. If he's going to sweep away all the the precedents, and go all the way back to the original text of the Constitution, he should apply the methodology the lawmakers assumed, understood and took for granted would be applied to it, instead of applying a obvious and transparent pretext for judicial activism.And you cite Blackstone. Exactly how did he deviate from Blackstone's, "The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable", and Blackstone's "Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use", as well as Blackstone's "...the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it."?

[manu1959]

You are correct, sir. The lawmakers didn't make the Constitution with the understanding it would be construed according to my personal views, or yours, or Thomas Jefferson's or Justice Scalia's.

The lawmakers, if the historical evidence is a true indicator, assumed, anticipated, understood and/or took for granted that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution, just as they applied to all legal instruments.

see what happens when you take things for granted......btw can you link me up to the historical evidence which suggets the framers expected required that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution.....

[manu1959]

And you cite Blackstone. Exactly how did he deviate from Blackstone's, "The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable", and Blackstone's "Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use", as well as Blackstone's "...the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it."?

my point exactly......which was swept aside by our resident law professor........

[Yurt]

I don't think the lawmakers made the Second Amendment with the understanding that it would be interpreted according to your beliefs. The evidence overwhelming points toward the lawmakers taking for granted that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution.

nothing should be taken for granted, and from what i have read of scalia's, for the most part, outstanding opinion, he and the other justices thoroughly examined historical evidence as it pertained to the quote/unquote mindset of the framers. as to common law rules of construction....my understanding, i could be wrong, is that common law is not set in stone, especially when it comes to rules of construction. the mindset of justices today cannot comprehend with 100% accuracy exactly what the framers thought or why they did something without something being written down. even that could be left open to interpretation, which is the job of the court. and they did a good job.

maybe i missed it, but why is your supposed method superior or correct?

[red states rule]

Yard sign in DC before the USSC decision

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/4214.jpg

[Little-Acorn]

If the people want reasonable restrictions placed on the possession and use of arms, they need to demand that the Constitution be amended, instead of relying on activists judges such as Scalia to legislate those restrictions from the bench.

Jagger, you have touched on a vital characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." As you indicate here, it does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, Some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

I don't know.

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the "Forgive and forget" principle to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When i meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

[Jagger]

Exactly how did he deviate from Blackstone's, "The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator Scalia's principle's object is to ascertain the understanding of ordinary citizens, not "the will of the lawmakers".

Scalia is a clever fellow. He knows that it's impossible for us to ever know what the understanding of the ordinary citizen was back in the 1780's. He adopts the principle precisely because it is unknowable and there are no well established objective rules to determine what it is. It provides a perfect pretext for inserting his personal views.

What Scalia does is first decide what the wants the words of the Constitution to say. Then he finds some source that says what he wants. Next, he applies whatever rule of construction will take him to that source.

For example:

In D. C. v. Heller, he ignores the "normal and ordinary use of the words by ordinary citizens" when he interprets the phrase “Right of the People." Instead he applies the second rule of constriction regarding "context." He also applies a principle derived from a writing that didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was made, which is absurd.

When he interprets the word "militia", he applies no rule of construction. He just makes up a meaning that squares with his desired outcome.

When he construes the word "arms", he uses smoke and mirrors. He feints in the direction of the first common law rule of constriution, but ends up fabricating his own definition, which is "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

His definition of "arms" get us nowhere, because it leaves us still having to ascertain the meaning of the word "arms." The fool uses the word he's trying to define, in the word's definition. Anyone with a good Christian raising and an eighth grade public school education knows that ain't real smart.

[red states rule]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-select.gif

[Yurt]

Scalia's principle's object is to ascertain the understanding of ordinary citizens, not "the will of the lawmakers".

Scalia is a clever fellow. He knows that it's impossible for us to ever know what the understanding of the ordinary citizen was back in the 1780's. He adopts the principle precisely because it is unknowable and there are no well established objective rules to determine what it is. It provides a perfect pretext for inserting his personal views.

What Scalia does is first decide what the wants the words of the Constitution to say. Then he finds some source that says what he wants. Next, he applies whatever rule of construction will take him to that source.

For example:

In D. C. v. Heller, he ignores the "normal and ordinary use of the words by ordinary citizens" when he interprets the phrase “Right of the People." Instead he applies the second rule of constriction regarding "context." He also applies a principle derived from a writing that didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was made, which is absurd.

When he interprets the word "militia", he applies no rule of construction. He just makes up a meaning that squares with his desired outcome.

When he construes the word "arms", he uses smoke and mirrors. He feints in the direction of the first common law rule of constriution, but ends up fabricating his own definition, which is "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

His definition of "arms" get us nowhere, because it leaves us still having to ascertain the meaning of the word "arms." The fool uses the word he's trying to define, in the word's definition. Anyone with a good Christian raising and an eighth grade public school education knows that ain't real smart.

what is your definition of arms....the things that hang off your shoulders?

[red states rule]

what is your definition of arms....the things that hang off your shoulders?

Good one Yurt. Tried to rep you - I owe you

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/rect-guncontrol-pd.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

According to the methodology espoused by our favorite judicial activist, the notorious Antonin Scalia, in D. C. v. Heller (2008), there is to be no consideration of context, dude. The only thing Scalia's principle of interpretation allows us to consider is the "normal and ordinary use" of words by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation."

And "normal and ordinary use" includes context, unless you speak in some foreign manner I am unaware of.

[LOki]

Scalia's principle's object is to ascertain the understanding of ordinary citizens, not "the will of the lawmakers".


Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

Scalia is consistent with Blackstone.


Scalia is a clever fellow. He knows that it's impossible for us to ever know what the understanding of the ordinary citizen was back in the 1780's. He adopts the principle precisely because it is unknowable and there are no well established objective rules to determine what it is. It provides a perfect pretext for inserting his personal views.You're making this shit up.


What Scalia does is first decide what the wants the words of the Constitution to say.Demonstrate this.


Then he finds some source that says what he wants. Next, he applies whatever rule of construction will take him to that source.

For example:

In D. C. v. Heller, he ignores the "normal and ordinary use of the words by ordinary citizens" when he interprets the phrase “Right of the People."Nonsense. Utter nonsense.


Instead he applies the second rule of constriction regarding "context." After having applied the first.


He also applies a principle derived from a writing that didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was made, which is absurd.Oh really? The princple was derived from that writing? Are you really sure?


When he interprets the word "militia", he applies no rule of construction. He just makes up a meaning that squares with his desired outcome.Since the Right enumerated in the 2nd is not contingent upon the milita--all the more so since you have thrown out subsequent commentary on principles--whether he made up a meaning for militia (which he didn't) or not, is irrelevent.


When he construes the word "arms", he uses smoke and mirrors. He feints in the direction of the first common law rule of constriution, but ends up fabricating his own definition, which is "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

His definition of "arms" get us nowhere, because it leaves us still having to ascertain the meaning of the word "arms." The fool uses the word he's trying to define, in the word's definition. Anyone with a good Christian raising and an eighth grade public school education knows that ain't real smart.I am unhappy that this definition is unjustly restrictive regarding what constitutes "arms", but his definition is by no means his own "fabricated" definition for the term.

You are obviously opposed to his interpretation, yet you have not revealed the exact problems you find with it.

You say he misuses "Right of the People" yet you do not offer a "proper" use; you similarly treat "milita" and "arms". Exactly and precisely how, in your opinion, is Scalia divergent from the "proper" contruction of the Amendment?

[Jagger]

The fundamental principle of construction adopted in D. C. v. Heller was cherry picked by the five activists from United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931).


In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)

--D. C. v. Heller

Since the five activists believe that it is the controlling authority on the principles of Constitutional interpretation, let's take a closer look at the case of UNITED STATES V. SPRAGUE. Here's the paragraph from U. S. v. Sprague opinion from which the activists claim to have obtained the principle.


The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 30; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 13; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U. S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U. S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655; Story on the Constitution (5th ed.) § 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (2d ed.) pp. 61, 70.


The Sprague Court was apparently articulating a rule of interpretation it derived from eight previous Supreme Court opinions, a section from Joseph Story's Commentaries and two page from Thomas Cooley's Constitutional Limitations. None of the sources citied in Sprague actually contain a sentence which reads, "The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

The rule espoused in Sprague doesn't exclude the application of other rules when the meaning of a word, term, phrase, clause or other element of language is still dubious after applying the meanings that are normally and ordinarily given to the words. This is just common sense, because many words have more that one normal and ordinary meaning. The word "right", for instance, is commonly used to signify over more than a half dozen intellectual ideas.

The five activists, judging from their snub of the second element of the principle advocated by the Sprague Court, seem to hold the view that words which have more than one meaning don't need further interpretation, which is of course, absurd. The activists, unless they are as dumb as rocks, know that the Second Amendment contains words that are going to still be dubious after applying the normal and ordinary meanings. For example, the normal and ordinary meaning of the word "people" is "persons collectively or in general." Applying that meaning to the word "people" makes the Second Amendment mean "the right of persons collectively or in general to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which just don't sound right.

The activists don't want to be bound by any objective rules or principles when they ascertain the meaning of dubious words in the Second Amendment. They want to be able to give free rein to their personal views and put meanings on the words that will produce the outcome their little activist hearts desire.

[Kathianne]

Now that's a:


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tmc3QWv02soxGM:http://www.marinepool.de/grafik/StretchPfeilsilbern.jpg

So true. Who would have thought we'd have a better legal mind, albeit with no bonifides, than 5 SCOTUS judges? :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Now that's a:


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tmc3QWv02soxGM:http://www.marinepool.de/grafik/StretchPfeilsilbern.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Hey Kath,
It's weird how your post, quoting mine, ended up posted before mine. :confused:

[LOki]

The fundamental principle of construction adopted in D. C. v. Heller was cherry picked by the five activists from United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931).


In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)

--D. C. v. Heller

Which is exacly the same as Blackstone--your own little legal resource. Argument done.


Since the five activists believe that it is the controlling authority on the principles of Constitutional interpretation, let's take a closer look at the case of UNITED STATES V. SPRAGUE. Here's the paragraph from U. S. v. Sprague opinion from which the activists claim to have obtained the principle.


The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 30; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 13; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U. S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U. S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655; Story on the Constitution (5th ed.) § 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (2d ed.) pp. 61, 70.


Again, consistent with your Blackstone--I will never get tired of this.


The Sprague Court was apparently articulating a rule of interpretation it derived from eight previous Supreme Court opinions, a section from Joseph Story's Commentaries and two page from Thomas Cooley's Constitutional Limitations. None of the sources citied in Sprague actually contain a sentence which reads, "The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

Which, of course is in complete agreement with your Blackstone, despite your as-of-yet to be revealed disagreement with their interpretation.


The rule espoused in Sprague doesn't exclude the application of other rules when the meaning of a word, term, phrase, clause or other element of language is still dubious after applying the meanings that are normally and ordinarily given to the words. This is just common sense, because many words have more that one normal and ordinary meaning. The word "right", for instance, is commonly used to signify over more than a half dozen intellectual ideas.

Is this your (activist) way of asserting that the term "right"--according to you and your Blackstone--in the US Constitution could validly describe some relationship to "left"?


The five activists, judging from their snub of the second element of the principle advocated by the Sprague Court, seem to hold the view that words which have more than one meaning don't need further interpretation, which is of course, absurd.

Absurd is the activist notion that "people" ould somehow not be construed as plural for "person", or "individual citizen."


The activists, unless they are as dumb as rocks, know that the Second Amendment contains words that are going to still be dubious after applying the normal and ordinary meanings. For example, the normal and ordinary meaning of the word "people" is "persons collectively or in general." Applying that meaning to the word "people" makes the Second Amendment mean "the right of persons collectively or in general to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which just don't sound right.

"Sounding right" is not the exact point--but the equvilancy of the terms is.


The activists don't want to be bound by any objective rules or principles when they ascertain the meaning of dubious words in the Second Amendment.

Speak for yourself...activist.


They want to be able to give free rein to their personal views and put meanings on the words that will produce the outcome their little activist hearts desire.

Again, speak for yourself.



You are obviously opposed to his interpretation, yet you have not revealed the exact problems you find with it.

You say he misuses "Right of the People" yet you do not offer a "proper" use; you similarly treat "milita" and "arms". Exactly and precisely how, in your opinion, is Scalia divergent from the "proper" contruction of the Amendment?

Quit being a pussy--submit a "proper" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Jagger]

Let's take a close look at the Court's interpretation of the the first clause of the Second Amendment. The words of the five judicial activists are in blue. My commentary is in red.



The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that

Commentary: The activists apparently recognize that rules of construction are necessary. I wonder if they will apply the rules that actually existed at the time the Constitution was being made?

“[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).

Commentary: That's probably not a bad rule. However, it wasn't one of the well established rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made. Is the Sprague Court going to be the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the U. S. Constitution. If so, why?

Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

Commentary: Where does that rule come from? Did the Sprague Court endorse that rule or did the five activist just make it up?

...The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

Commentary: Why did the five activists cite Tiffany as the authority for their "rephrasing" of the Amendment, and then rephrase it differently than Tiffany did? Why is the Sprague Court no longer the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the U. S. Constitution? If Tiffany is now the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the Constitution, should we apply Tiffany's other rules, such as the one that says, "the meaning of the constitution... must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation...at the time the constitution was framed and adopted.

Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace
Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Commentary: At time the Constitution was made, there were well established common law rules of construction. Under those rules, other legal documents cannot be consider, unless the rules allow them to be considered.

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.

Commentary: According to the well established rules existent at the time the Constitution was made, when the reason for a law terminates,so does the law. Is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state?

The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause

Commentary: Under the rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made, if the cause that moved the legislator ceases to exist, so does the law. Now that we rely on a standing army, is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state?

(“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.)

Commentary: The word "canons" doesn't mean "clergymen."

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris,
A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

Commentary: Why is Tiffany no longer the authority on rules of construction?

‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).

Commentary: Why are Dwarris and Sedgwick no longer the supreme authorities on the rules of construction.

Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.

Commentary: If you're not going to apply the well established common law rules of construction, you're just wasting your time.

[AllieBaba]

What should bother people is there were 4 Judges who ruled law abiding people do NOT have the right to defend themselves

It bothers me.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by Jagger View Post
The fundamental principle of construction adopted in D. C. v. Heller was cherry picked by the five activists from United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931).

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)

--D. C. v. Heller

loki
Which is exacly the same as Blackstone

Show us where Blackstone said legal instruments are written to be understood by the voters or that their words were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning?

[Little-Acorn]

So, do you think the Framers intended that we use a "forgive and forget" policy as I speculated in Post #96, when cops are responding to criminals in the act? Could the reason they made ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS to the 2nd amendment's ban on govt taking away your right to own and carry a gun, was that they were relying on an early form of Jury Nullification for the extreme case that I decribed?

[Little-Acorn]

I have moved this subject ("reasonable restrictions"/jury nullification) to a thread all its own, since it is of fundamental importance.

[LOki]

Show us where Blackstone said legal instruments are written to be understood by the voters or that their words were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning?I have already, specificly, done this for you. See above.

[Jagger]

Is "a well regulated militia" still necessary, in 2008, for the security of the free state? The fact that we don't have a militia any more is all the proof one needs that a militia isn't necessary.

[Rick OShea]

Jagger, there were not 5 "activist" Justices there were nine :laugh2: . . . The dissents agree with the majority that the right protected by the 2nd is an individual right. On that single point the opinion of the Court was unanimous; Breyer's dissent at pg 3 says:


"I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). . . . "

The disagreement between the majority and the dissents lies in the scope of the protection of that right. The liberal side of the Court just thought the DC statute was a legitimate exercise of power using a new standard of scrutiny . . .

It was the dissent that is breaking new ground in constitutional interpretation, not the majority!

Instead of pushing this strained "Scalia is an activist violating the rules of interpretation," why don't you tell all of us why the individual right secured by the 2nd is of such a diminished status that it requires the application of this special lower standard of scrutiny proposed by the liberal Justices.

Explain why the individual right to arms is of a lower class than the rest of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights (remaining consistent with your iron-clad rules of constitutional interpretation of course).

[LOki]

The fact that we don't have a militia any more is all the proof one needs that a militia isn't necessary.The fact that we don't have a miitia or a free state is all the proof that you're wrong.

[Jagger]

The States neglect their Militia.

--James Madison during the general convention of 1787 that drew up the U. S. Constitution

[LOki]

The States neglect their Militia.

--James Madison during the general convention of 1787 that drew up the U. S. Constitution
Yes...and...?

[Rick OShea]

Yes...and...?

Jagger is just confirming how illogical the theory is that the founders intended the RKBA of the people to be conditional on any organization or structure maintained by the states.

See, the "militia right" theory demands one accept that even in the face of such state inaction and neglect of the militia, the framers intended the federally secured RKBA be entirely dependent upon such rickety support in the states, . . . and that such state inaction and neglect would effectively negate the federal protection of the RKBA of the people!

I agree, such a theory is nonsense, knowing that the founders knew state militia structure could so easily be compromised.

Thanks Jagger!