The Mance Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 The SCOTUS has reserved to itself the ultimate power to determine what is reasonable under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14A. Yes, as is their explicit duty as members of the judicial branch of government. And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Bah. The 2nd amendment gives the right to own a gun, not carry it with you everywhere you go. "Bear arms", in the way it was intended and used in that time, most surely meant warring, being a soldier. Not the literal meaning of "I can carry my guns everywhere!"If I recall correctly, even then the arms were regulated by local authorities and had to be stored properly and safeguarded. As they were used within a militia.Revisionist History? I am shocked. Shocked I say. Your recollections are wrong there buddy. One of the purposes of the right to bear arms is the right to rebel against an unjust government. Asking the government to "hold on to my gun until I need it" is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfSo no, states must issue licenses. That's right but they must issue licenses. The SCOTUS has reserved to itself the ultimate power to determine what is reasonable under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14A. They could have written that sentence more explicitly, but I thought given the context of the amendment they're invoking, it should be obvious that what they really mean is more like "states must issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex... in all instances in which they would issue marriage licenses to couples of the opposite sex." I haven't read the full opinion so maybe it does spell this out elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 This is nonsense. SCOTUS has already ruled on this in the Heller case. The right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right. I think Ser Scot or one of the other board lawyers should weigh in on exactly what was decided in Heller, and what it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Revisionist History? I am shocked. Shocked I say. Your recollections are wrong there buddy. One of the purposes of the right to bear arms is the right to rebel against an unjust government. Asking the government to "hold on to my gun until I need it" is insane. No, the purpose was to guard against Federal military power by protecting state militias from being disarmed by Congress. At the time militia members kept their arms, so the right to do so in connection with militia service was Constitutionally protected. Fallen is absolutely correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frog Eater Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 No, the purpose was to guard against Federal military power by protecting state militias from being disarmed by Congress. At the time militia members kept their arms, so the right to do so in connection with militia service was Constitutionally protected. Fallen is absolutely correct. sigh here [url=]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 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. My right to bear arms is not contingent on service in a militia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Oh good, another argument over the intent of the Second Amendment. I am sure we'll sort it out this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 sigh here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 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. My right to bear arms is not contingent on service in a militia Your sigh and mere statement of the text of the Second Amendment is not an argument. Actually looking at the text and commenting on it is important. For instance, the phrase "well regulated Militia" appears prominently, as does the concern for States' security (which speaks exactly the point I just made). Oh good, another argument over the intent of the Second Amendment. I am sure we'll sort it out this time. I don't think there is any hope on any of the political discussions on this forum of sorting things out conclusively. There's just interest in the topic and the outside chance that some onlooker will be persuaded by one side of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 They could have written that sentence more explicitly, but I thought given the context of the amendment they're invoking, it should be obvious that what they really mean is more like "states must issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex... in all instances in which they would issue marriage licenses to couples of the opposite sex." I haven't read the full opinion so maybe it does spell this out elsewhere. No I think Kennedy was quite deliberate in his wording. He fancies himself the Lincoln of the 21st century after all, this is his legacy. He clearly had in mind the prospect of southern and western states refusing to issue marriage licenses as a means to escape the requirement to marry gay people. We'll find out when a case goes before SCOTUS, but I believe it'll be ruled unconstitutional. Marriage, and the financial and legal benefits accrued from marriage, have been deemed a fundamental right. For people to get married they must be issued a license, no license no civil marriage. States refusing to issue are hence acting in an unconstitutional manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Your sigh and mere statement of the text of the Second Amendment is not an argument. Actually looking at the text and commenting on it is important. For instance, the phrase "well regulated Militia" appears prominently, as does the concern for States' security (which speaks exactly the point I just made). I don't think there is any hope on any of the political discussions on this forum of sorting things out conclusively. There's just interest in the topic and the outside chance that some onlooker will be persuaded by one side of the argument. No I think he means if the founders wanted to restrict the right to bear arms to state militias they'd have written 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of members of state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Of course they didn't which means you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 No I think he means if the founders wanted to restrict the right to bear arms to state militias they'd have written 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of members of state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Of course they didn't which means you're wrong. This statement only betrays your ignorance of the period, the distinction between militia members and other citizens would not have been made because white men, the only citizens contemplated, were expected to serve in the militia as an essential civic duty. This was still mostly a frontier beset on all sides by threats real and perceived, security was a chief concern. To "bear arms" also carries specifically a military meaning, it's redundant in any case to state that militia members shall have the right to use arms in militia service. The prefatory statement about state militias and security makes this perfectly clear, but you want to hold that language to be meaningless because it's not rephrased again redundantly over the space of a one sentence amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 No I think he means if the founders wanted to restrict the right to bear arms to state militias they'd have written 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of members of state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Of course they didn't which means you're wrong. Alternatively, had they wanted to give every American the ability to bear a weapon at any time, they wouldn't have put that well-regulated militia stuff in there at all. Really, the Second Amendment should have about as much relevance to the modern world as the Third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 No I think Kennedy was quite deliberate in his wording. He fancies himself the Lincoln of the 21st century after all, this is his legacy. He clearly had in mind the prospect of southern and western states refusing to issue marriage licenses as a means to escape the requirement to marry gay people. We'll find out when a case goes before SCOTUS, but I believe it'll be ruled unconstitutional. Marriage, and the financial and legal benefits accrued from marriage, have been deemed a fundamental right. For people to get married they must be issued a license, no license no civil marriage. States refusing to issue are hence acting in an unconstitutional manner. Unless you can actually point to a federal law that says states must issue marriage certificates you're just wrong. And since you can't because one does not exist, this argument, and really the whole line of thinking, is incredibly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 RBPL,This was a third amendment case that arose from police commandering someone's home as a "command post" in an investigation:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Wow, this is quite the libertarian dismount. However owning guns and getting married are RIGHTS, if a license is required to regulate a right the SCOTUS has decided that the license must be issued to anyone who applies for one in all 50 states and territories. No, they've decided that rights cannot be restricted based on protected classes. So yes, if you deny guns to gays you're unconstitutional. If you deny guns to people based on the TYPE OF WEAPON then it's fine, unless the type of weapon happens to be a female or gay or an ethnic minority. The issue you're having a problem with is that this ruling has nothing to do with some states granting marriage rights and others not. That was what the ruling started from, but the decision is essentially 'you can't deny gay people marriage licenses'. Why you continue to equate the decision of granting a protected class a right to granting all people a right to a type of weapon is a bit bizarre. Do you believe that concealed weapons are a protected class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Unless you can actually point to a federal law that says states must issue marriage certificates you're just wrong. And since you can't because one does not exist, this argument, and really the whole line of thinking, is incredibly stupid. Read the ruling. Alternatively, had they wanted to give every American the ability to bear a weapon at any time, they wouldn't have put that well-regulated militia stuff in there at all. Really, the Second Amendment should have about as much relevance to the modern world as the Third. If they wanted to give everyone the right to bear arms they might have used words like mmmmm, I dunnow, the people? You know the people as in the general population. Fortunately being good progressives...hold on a sec! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Read the ruling. The equal protection clause says nothing about the federal govt forcing states to issue any kind of contract. The ruling also doesn't refer to any law or requirement that states issue these contracts either. So, yet again, you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Read the ruling. If they wanted to give everyone the right to bear arms they might have used words like mmmmm, I dunnow, the people? You know the people as in the general population. Fortunately being good progressives...hold on a sec! Why do you think they used words like a well regulated militia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 The equal protection clause says nothing about the federal govt forcing states to issue any kind of contract. The ruling also doesn't refer to any law or requirement that states issue these contracts either. So, yet again, you're wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex No license no civil marriage. Civil marriage is now a fundamental right, to deny a license when requested by a couple of either sex (assuming they meet age and non familial restrictions) is in contravention of the 14th amendment. I didn't say it makes sense I'm saying that's the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 @Reny of Storms EndA 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 infringedKnow the constitution, the idea of militia is the reason but not a prequesition.And please do not stress militia too much, or the next thing is that actually to be able to form a well regulated militia today you need attack helicopters. And actually what else are they if not the cavelery of back then, and back then horses were legal, too.The point is that it was written, when all a well regulated militia needed were a few muscets and maybe a cannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.