Supreme Court and Gun Regulation

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

first appointment, in this decision, voted Constitutionally incorrectly.

If that's really the case then why was there ever a vote?

-spence

[MotoXcowboy]

here ya go fishweewee

I/G showing off my Mossberg 590 and AK 47's :

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If that's really the case then why was there ever a vote?

-spence

Why didn't you ask JohnnyD why he thinks striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally corrrect choices? And "if that's really the case" how would you characterize the minority opinion? Were the minority votes also Constitutionally correct? Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?

Yes.

-spence

[scottw]

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

[detbuch]

To Spence:

Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view?
Your "yes" answer is incorrect. The Constitution is not a list of opinions. It is the blueprint by which we are governed. Some judges may treat it as someone else's opinion which can be over-ruled by their own. This is called judicial activism. Such activism is outside of the blueprint and was not intended. Such activism is a usurpation of powers intended for other branches of government. It not only usurps those powers, it destroys the intended balance of power, making the Court THE governing branch, rather than the branch that checks the others against unconstitutional (legal) legislation.

Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered?
Your "yes" answer is inappropriate. Each judicial opinion cannot be correct in its own special way. It can only be correct if it follows the Constitution. It cannot, appropriately, change or abrogate the Constitution. It sometimes happens that the majority votes in contradistinction to the Constitution. This creates Constitutional change by judicial activism, which is incorrect. Constitutional change is only supposed to occur by ammendment or Constitutional Convention. Nor is it supposed to occur by Case Law precedent. If Legal Cases were decided in accordance with the Constitution, they would not invoke change. It is bad or Constitutionally incorrectly decided decisions that lead to bad or incorrect precedent that in turn lead to unconstitutional judicial decisions.

Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes?
Your "yes" answer is, again, incorrect. The original meanings of the words that comprise the Constitution remain the same. New connotations and denotations of words spelled the same as those in the Constitution do not change or replace them in Court adjudication. The original meanings still pertain. Nor do the political, philosophical, social, or economic opinions of new regimes allow the Court to change the Constitution in order suit these whims.

Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?[/QUOTE]

Your "yes" answer to this last portion is partially correct. The Constitution was intended to be easily understood by all. The language was not intended to be poured over, disected, parsed, and interpreted in differing ways.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why didn't you ask JohnnyD why he thinks striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally corrrect choices? And "if that's really the case" how would you characterize the minority opinion? Were the minority votes also Constitutionally correct? Is the Constitution merely a list of opinions that can be viewed by each judge through the filter of his/her own personal point of view? Is each judicial opinion, in its own special way, correct but out of favor simply because it was outnumbered? Is the Constitution just a bunch of words whose meanings change with the passage of time and with the changes of political regimes? Was the Constitution written for lawyers and judges to "interpret," or was it intended to be a simple, forthright document that can be understood by the ordinary citizen?

Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.

I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.

If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.

I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.

If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.

that is progressive pablum JD, I think you need to reacquiant yourself with the Constitution

[detbuch]

JohnnyD--firstly, your falling into the trap that nullifies your own assertion that "striking down the DC and the Chicago bans are Constitutionally correct choices" if you believe that judicial "interpretation" is based on personal opinion, especially opinion that is not Constitutionally based. Judicial opinions based on personal opinions make the Constitution moot.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution are interpretative... probably why few major decisions are voted 9-0.
The DECISIONS may be interpretive (rightly or wrongly), the CONSTITUTION is not.

I think the public hanging of child rapists and murderers would be Constitutionally acceptable and not conflict with the restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment". Others may disagree and perceive it as Unconstitutional.
You may argue that a punishment is or is not "cruel and unusual", but you may not disregard the Constitutional command against such punishment. Again, the decision may have shades of "interpretation", but the Constitutional statute is not nullilfied or changed.

The Constitution is a document which needs to be interpreted. I believe our Founding Fathers intentionally left the Constitution vague in some aspects to preserve the documents longevity and legitimacy as the country developed and changed.
The Constitution needs to be adhered to and applied, not interpreted. Judicial "interpretation" is supposed to be an application of and adherence to the Constitution. If said "interpretation" is based on personal whim, political orientation, views of "social justice" not contained in the Constitution, this results in an unauthorized change to the Constitution. The Constitution was not left vague. It was specifically clear in its mode and intent. It is was, as you say, meant to maintain longevity over time and change by its brief (not vague) adherence to natural law (especially human nature) and the pre-eminence of natural rights above government restrictions. It made clear how it could be changed. It did not provide for change by Court fiat or "interpretation."

If this were not the case, everything within the Constitution would have been written in clear, well-articulated detail. Should that have happened, the Constitution would not have stood up to the test of time as effectively as it has and it would now be an outdated, ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes.

It was written in far clearer and intentionally limited detail than the ensuing muddy non-Constitutionally based opinions and decisions of activist judges. It will only stand the test of time if it is followed, not changed. Those who perceive it a living, breathing thing that evolves into permutations that destroy its original intentions (which they percieve to be outmoded and unapplicable to changing times and notions) will not follow it as written and the "change" will indeed make it an "ineffective document that is discussed over a few days in History classes"--if it is actually, really, and TRULY discussed at all.

Obama's view that the Constitution should be about what government should do rather than what it shouldn't do is exactly the activist "change" and ensuing destruction of the Constitution that I believe he meant, among other things, when he promised to fundamentally transform this nation. The Constitution is our foundation. His like minded appointments to the Supreme Court (and to lower Courts as well) will continue the progressive "change" that has been occuring to our fundamental law and governance.