You fail or refuse to akgnowledge three very simple and obvious facts.
A) healthcare is ALREADY a guranteed right - hospitals are not ALLOWED to turn you away even if you cannot pay. Does that compute?
B) The government DOES force me to buy a gun. Every year. Its all itemized in the 'defense budget' line.
C) Even ignoring the sarcastic nature of response B, comparing health care to an implement of death and violence is very indicative of your critical thinking.
You need to check your facts more carefully.
Healthcare is not a guaranteed right. Hospitals can and do refuse to treat people, every day. They are required to perform certain emergency services, but that requirement is relatively limited.
As for (B) and (C): You're arguing for an essentially unlimited expansion in federal regulatory powers. I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument. Defense is a legitimate government interest. While I do not expect such a law to be passed, you are advocating that the government should be able to make and enforce such laws.
You missed the point. The issue is that you are advocating that the government have the power to enact such laws. If the health care bill is constitutional, then a law requiring you to buy a gun every year would also be constitutional. Whether or not you need it is irrelevant.
Health care cannot be a right, and I honestly cannot conceive of the twisted thinking that gives rise to such an idea. If health care is a guaranteed right, then you are essentially advocating slavery for health care providers.
And, for all those democrats who think this is a bad decision, let's turn this around: do you think it would be reasonable for the government to force you to buy a gun every year? It's the exact same thing.
The War on Drugs is a result of Wickard v Fillburn and more recently Gonzales v Raich. Both decisions were horrible. They allow the government to regulate almost any conduct which affects any interstate market -- including conduct that is purely local. But government regulation (setting rules for a market) is not the same as a mandate which forces people to engage in commerce. The health care bill is distinguished because it requires people to buy something.
Laws must be passed by both the House and Senate, then they go to the President's desk for his signature (or veto).
Many of the laws that have been passed are illegal. The federal government is chartered by the U.S. Constitution, which is a document specifically listing the things that the federal government is allowed to do. Nothing prevents Congress from passing laws which violate the Constitution. This happens all the time, and the only possible remedy is to challenge the law in court. Unfortunately, the courts are statist and they tend to strike down only the most egregious violations (and sometimes not even then).
This was a very good decision, and I commend the judge. The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused by the federal government.
Instead of weakening our constitutional rights and taking away our privacy little by little, our representatives need to respect democratic opinion and decisions and the will of its own people and stop trying to push a national ID system on us. This has happened in the UK where people are finally waking up and protesting on the streets now, only that it's too late for them. We are not in the UK, China, or North Korea here. The US is a democratic country and our government and representatives need to respect that. Period.
Too late for that.
Oh, and by the way, The US is not a democracy -- it's a constitutional republic. The federal government is supposed to be limited to those powers directly granted in the Constitution. Not that anyone in power actually pays attention to that little detail...
In general, 9mm is only slightly less powerful than.45ACP, but it is actually better at penetrating barriers. Also, note that modern handgun ammunition is designed to limit penetration.
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Hogwash. Freedom of speech does not require that I respect the opinions of others; it merely restrains the government from inhibiting their ability to speak. In fact, this post illustrates my point: I have no respect for what you wrote in your post, though you still have the right to express such ridiculous ideas.
If you deny me the right to defend myself, you are denying the most fundamental of all human rights.
The liberals only support some civil rights, and conservatives don't have all of them, either.
For example, one of the few rights we still have (in some states) is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. And it provides another means of fighting for rights.
It was the Scalia opinion that rejected the "framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people". The Scalia opinion that explicitly said the second amendment "unconnected" to the issue of reserv[ing] the tools for revolution to the people.
You're taking that out of context -- that's not what Scalia meant. Scalia certainly did observe that the 2nd amendment has a connection to the militia. What he meant here was that it also protects firearms which are not possessed for militia purposes.
Just because four of them disagree with you doesn't make them intellectually dishonest.
Oh, absolutely. They aren't intellectually dishonest because they disagree with me. They are intellectually dishonest because their written opinions are full of disingenuous arguments.
You should read their dissenting opinions before accusing them of that.
It clearly provides a reason for the latter part, but to claim it provides the only reason is an unwarranted leap of logic. Merely providing a reason for something does not suggest that no other reasons may be valid, and it certainly does not imply that no other reasons are possible. The first clause provides a reason, and the second a command; but there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the command is constrained by the reason.
In dissent, Stevens wrote:
The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons I don't find this at all difficult to believe. And clearly, Stevens hasn't actually read the 2nd Amendment, since that's exactly what it says.
The right is given to the People -- and
the use and meaning of that term is consistent throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "Shall not be infringed" is the strongest language anywhere in the Constitution! Even the 1st Amendment uses milder language ("Congress shall make no law...). Furthermore, the original meaning of militia is also beyond dispute... and it is most certainly not the military or national guard. Simply put, there is no logical way to accept these facts and yet dissent with the majority.
That the dissenting justices know this but would permit an absolute ban anyway is astounding. If such a nonsensical interpretation of plain text were permitted, of what use is the Constitution at all?
Scalia's decision is correct; I suggest you read it. Look at what the Founders had to say about arms in the hands of private citizens. The plain language is quite clear, as is the history.
Scalia refutes Stevens' criticism with a footnote on pg. 47:
JUSTICE STEVENSâ(TM) accusation that this is âoenot accurate,â post, at 39,
is wrong. It is true it was the indictment that described the right as
âoebearing arms for a lawful purpose.â But, in explicit reference to the
right described in the indictment, the Court stated that âoeThe second
amendment declares that it [i.e., the right of bearing arms for a lawful
purpose] shall not be infringed.â 92 U. S., at 553.
licensing is not forbidden by the 2A, but only when imposed in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious. The Court did not actually rule either way on licensing. I think Scalia's comments on licensing suggest that he would have invalidated a licensing requirement, but couldn't rule beyond basic relief (requiring DC to grant Heller a license) because no argument was made against licensing. In general, though, licenses on basic rights are not allowed: it's not a right if you have to ask permission from the government in order to exercise it.
The Court declined to specify a standard for review in 2A-based challenges to gun control laws. For example, it will leave the matter of whether gun control laws must pass rational basis or strict scrutiny to later challenges. In a footnote, Scalia did point out that rational basis would not be appropriate.
Yes actually, if by "someone" you mean the four liberal justices in this case. Clearly I think their dissenting arguments are intellectually dishonest. (However, it seems that you may actually be suggesting that I believe anyone who might disagree with me is intellectually dishonest. That is, of course, ridiculous.)
It's quite amazing how people can twist a simple statement (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. That is intellectually dishonest.
(And no, I haven't forgotten the first clause; but to claim that the first clause must restrict the second quite frankly ignores the rules and construction of plain English.)
Actually, that's often not the case. For example, the conservative justices dissented from the liberal majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (which ensured Habeas Corpus for detainees, thus limiting the power of the government to detain without due process). And Scalia usually pretty statist.
If you can afford it... 18 USC 922(o) prohibits the transfer or possession of a machinegun which was not grandfathered, i.e. legally possessed before 1986. Scalia's opinion suggests that this ban would likely be upheld by the court.
Read the opinion; there are limits to those arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. Here is an excerpt from Scalia's majority opinion:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35â"36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
Elsewhere, he writes:
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
"in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons." [...]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military serviceâ"M-16 rifles and the likeâ"may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
Breyer's dissent notes a logical problem with the majority opinion:
Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides
which loaded "arms" a homeowner may keep. The majority
says that that Amendment protects those weapons
"typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes." Ante, at 53. This definition conveniently excludes
machineguns, but permits handguns, which the
majority describes as "the most popular weapon chosen by
Americans for self-defense in the home." Ante, at 57; see
also ante, at 54â"55. But what sense does this approach
make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress
and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of
machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect
their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find
that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the
individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
On the majority's reasoning, if tomorrow someone
invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense
weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it
immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no
longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In
essence, the majority determines what regulations are
permissible by looking to see what existing regulations
permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers
intended such circular reasoning.
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)
What is speech, if not the transmission of information from one person to another?
This is a first amendment issue, and I am pretty sure a court would see it as such. Interfering with the distribution of "works that are legally available, like... books" is interference with the press.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about twisted thinking.
You fail or refuse to akgnowledge three very simple and obvious facts.
A) healthcare is ALREADY a guranteed right - hospitals are not ALLOWED to turn you away even if you cannot pay. Does that compute?
B) The government DOES force me to buy a gun. Every year. Its all itemized in the 'defense budget' line.
C) Even ignoring the sarcastic nature of response B, comparing health care to an implement of death and violence is very indicative of your critical thinking.
You need to check your facts more carefully.
Healthcare is not a guaranteed right. Hospitals can and do refuse to treat people, every day. They are required to perform certain emergency services, but that requirement is relatively limited.
As for (B) and (C): You're arguing for an essentially unlimited expansion in federal regulatory powers. I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument. Defense is a legitimate government interest. While I do not expect such a law to be passed, you are advocating that the government should be able to make and enforce such laws.
WTF??? This is seriously the stupidest thing I've read all day! Read this post to see why health care should be mandatory: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1908608&cid=34537174
Why would I even need a gun?
You missed the point. The issue is that you are advocating that the government have the power to enact such laws. If the health care bill is constitutional, then a law requiring you to buy a gun every year would also be constitutional. Whether or not you need it is irrelevant.
Health care cannot be a right, and I honestly cannot conceive of the twisted thinking that gives rise to such an idea. If health care is a guaranteed right, then you are essentially advocating slavery for health care providers.
And, for all those democrats who think this is a bad decision, let's turn this around: do you think it would be reasonable for the government to force you to buy a gun every year? It's the exact same thing.
The War on Drugs is a result of Wickard v Fillburn and more recently Gonzales v Raich. Both decisions were horrible. They allow the government to regulate almost any conduct which affects any interstate market -- including conduct that is purely local. But government regulation (setting rules for a market) is not the same as a mandate which forces people to engage in commerce. The health care bill is distinguished because it requires people to buy something.
Laws must be passed by both the House and Senate, then they go to the President's desk for his signature (or veto).
Many of the laws that have been passed are illegal. The federal government is chartered by the U.S. Constitution, which is a document specifically listing the things that the federal government is allowed to do. Nothing prevents Congress from passing laws which violate the Constitution. This happens all the time, and the only possible remedy is to challenge the law in court. Unfortunately, the courts are statist and they tend to strike down only the most egregious violations (and sometimes not even then).
This was a very good decision, and I commend the judge. The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused by the federal government.
Instead of weakening our constitutional rights and taking away our privacy little by little, our representatives need to respect democratic opinion and decisions and the will of its own people and stop trying to push a national ID system on us. This has happened in the UK where people are finally waking up and protesting on the streets now, only that it's too late for them. We are not in the UK, China, or North Korea here. The US is a democratic country and our government and representatives need to respect that. Period.
Too late for that.
Oh, and by the way, The US is not a democracy -- it's a constitutional republic. The federal government is supposed to be limited to those powers directly granted in the Constitution. Not that anyone in power actually pays attention to that little detail...
In general, 9mm is only slightly less powerful than .45ACP, but it is actually better at penetrating barriers. Also, note that modern handgun ammunition is designed to limit penetration.
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Hogwash. Freedom of speech does not require that I respect the opinions of others; it merely restrains the government from inhibiting their ability to speak. In fact, this post illustrates my point: I have no respect for what you wrote in your post, though you still have the right to express such ridiculous ideas.
If you deny me the right to defend myself, you are denying the most fundamental of all human rights.
If they're an abusive monopoly or otherwise uncompetitive market... yes.
The liberals only support some civil rights, and conservatives don't have all of them, either.
For example, one of the few rights we still have (in some states) is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. And it provides another means of fighting for rights.
Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements unconstitutional tools (He didn't)
There, fixed that for you.
It was the Scalia opinion that rejected the "framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people". The Scalia opinion that explicitly said the second amendment "unconnected" to the issue of reserv[ing] the tools for revolution to the people.
You're taking that out of context -- that's not what Scalia meant. Scalia certainly did observe that the 2nd amendment has a connection to the militia. What he meant here was that it also protects firearms which are not possessed for militia purposes.
Just because four of them disagree with you doesn't make them intellectually dishonest.
Oh, absolutely. They aren't intellectually dishonest because they disagree with me. They are intellectually dishonest because their written opinions are full of disingenuous arguments.
You should read their dissenting opinions before accusing them of that.
I have read the dissenting opinions.
In dissent, Stevens wrote: The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons I don't find this at all difficult to believe. And clearly, Stevens hasn't actually read the 2nd Amendment, since that's exactly what it says.
The right is given to the People -- and the use and meaning of that term is consistent throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "Shall not be infringed" is the strongest language anywhere in the Constitution! Even the 1st Amendment uses milder language ("Congress shall make no law...). Furthermore, the original meaning of militia is also beyond dispute... and it is most certainly not the military or national guard. Simply put, there is no logical way to accept these facts and yet dissent with the majority.
That the dissenting justices know this but would permit an absolute ban anyway is astounding. If such a nonsensical interpretation of plain text were permitted, of what use is the Constitution at all?
Scalia's decision is correct; I suggest you read it. Look at what the Founders had to say about arms in the hands of private citizens. The plain language is quite clear, as is the history.
Yes actually, if by "someone" you mean the four liberal justices in this case. Clearly I think their dissenting arguments are intellectually dishonest. (However, it seems that you may actually be suggesting that I believe anyone who might disagree with me is intellectually dishonest. That is, of course, ridiculous.)
It's quite amazing how people can twist a simple statement (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. That is intellectually dishonest.
(And no, I haven't forgotten the first clause; but to claim that the first clause must restrict the second quite frankly ignores the rules and construction of plain English.)
Actually, that's often not the case. For example, the conservative justices dissented from the liberal majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (which ensured Habeas Corpus for detainees, thus limiting the power of the government to detain without due process). And Scalia usually pretty statist.
If you can afford it... 18 USC 922(o) prohibits the transfer or possession of a machinegun which was not grandfathered, i.e. legally possessed before 1986. Scalia's opinion suggests that this ban would likely be upheld by the court.
Elsewhere, he writes:
Breyer's dissent notes a logical problem with the majority opinion:
No, the majority in Boumadiene v. Bush consisted of the liberal justices (Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg) and Kennedy.
The majority in D.C. v. Heller were the liberal justices (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) and Kennedy.
Both decisions were fundamentally good.
I'm glad they made the right decision, but shocked that it was so close (5-4). I'd expect more intellectual honesty from Supreme Court judges.
-- Supreme Court majority opinion, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1956)
That clause from Article 6 doesn't allow for treaties to amend the Constitution. A treaty can not supersede the 1st Amendment.
What is speech, if not the transmission of information from one person to another?
This is a first amendment issue, and I am pretty sure a court would see it as such. Interfering with the distribution of "works that are legally available, like... books" is interference with the press.