Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
I believe that the test to determine what a "fundamental right" is, is well established and now that fundamental status has been declared for the right to arms for self defense it can't be undone.
It is telling that we have to "test" to determine what are fundamental rights. Would that "great residuum of everythng not conferred to government" be comprised of fundamental rights? Isn't that why the Federalists didn't want to create a Bill of Rights? And isn't what they warned against that which has happened? Haven't the Bill of Rights implied exceptions to powers not granted and afforded colorable pretext for the Federal Gvt. to claim more rights than were granted to it. And by doing so, has not that Federal Gvt. suppressed, usurped, or gained power over the vast residuum of individual rights, leaving only a violation of the Bill of Rights worthy of "Strict Scrutiny?"
And aren't even those rights in The Bill of Rights under assault?:
First Ammendment: Contraceptive insurance required even by certain religious orgs. The rather newly "found" Doctrine of Government Speech that can override individual speech.
2nd: The constant attempts by the Federal Gvt. to regulate, restrict, or ban arms.
4th: The Patriot Act.
5th: Kelo v. New London.
9th and 10th: Progressive judicial "interpretation" especially from FDR Court to the present have allowed the Federal Gvt. to wrest powers beyond the enumerated powers or have twisted the meaning of clauses which has debilitated or denied much of that "greate residuum" of rights that were to be retained by the people.
Thomas's concurrence is a blueprint of where we should be and I recommend everyone read it.
|
I followed your advice and did read it. I agree. Thomas is my favorite SCOTUS Judge. I think he is more faithful to the Constitution even than Scalia.
But
Heller and
McDonald were both 5 to 4 decisions. Kagan and Sotomayor didn't even bother to write a dissent in
McDonald. I think that elections DO matter, and "fundamental rights" can be restricted or denied depending on who legislates and which judges have been appointed by those elected. Thomas and Scalia may not be sitting on the Court in the near future, and if progressive judges take their place, the assault on individual, "fundamental" rights will continue. And even if the Second Ammendment is now unassailable, which I don't think is true, given how that "great residuum" of rights has been gutted or put under the largesse of government, what use would the 2nd be if all others were taken? Are we worthy, as a people, of the Second Ammendment? Would we, under duress of losing our rights, actually put that Ammendment to the use for which it was ultimately intended?
I don't think so.