Page 12 of 12

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:46 pm
by Ironman
Matt Z wrote:"The Supreme court does interpret the constitution but they *CAN'T* change it. Repealing an amendment requires a 2 thirds majority AND 3 quarters of all states. Besides that the 2nd amendment is in the Bill of rights. There is no legal precedence for changing anything in the bill of rights. I would dare say it would be considered taboo." - Ironman

No, the Supreme Court can't repeal an amendment, but it can overturn a previous Supreme Court ruling. If the Supreme Court rules that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, as some argue, then there would be no need to repeal the Second Amendment.
They can overturn a ruling, or strike down a law. They can't rule there is no right to bear arms. "legislating from the bench" is just so much Carl Rove BS. Basically not making the most conservative ruling is legislating from the bench.

If Thomas died, he would get replaced with someone who is at least somewhat liberal. This would allow gun laws not to be struck down. However the law would still have to be made first.

States can't pass total gun bans because of he 2nd amendment. However they can enact tougher gun control laws right now, over the last 8 years or whenever they want.

I really doubt I am going to see any of those bills make it past committee. That is because voting for something like that is political suicide anywhere but the east or west coast. I will predict any such measures making it to the senate floor will be defeated 72 to 28. That of course is in the very unlikely event the republicans don't just philibuster it.

Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:19 pm
by Matt Z
"They can overturn a ruling, or strike down a law. They can't rule there is no right to bear arms." - Ironman

I'm not making this up. Four Supreme Court Justices have already argued that there is no INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Likewise, prior to the recent DC Gun Ban ruling several lower federal courts actually ruled that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. I can't believe I'm the only one here who's ever heard the Militia argument.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:50 am
by Ironman
I have heard it. They were not deciding what the 2nd amendment means to decide if guns will be banned, they were doing it to argue for and against a court case. The result was a 5 to 4 vote that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. So it's not that 4 justices think we have no right to guns, or would have any power to ban them. They just think DC ban should stand. I agree with the Kennedy and strangely enough Scalia interpretation myself. Not to mention the logic behind such ideas are flawed to being with.

So I suppose if a conservative died, cities might be able to get a handgun ban in. So then DC might ban guns again provided there are enough votes and interest to do it again. Other cities are unlikely to do that though. None have tried to so far. In fact many places have passed conceal and carry laws. I think most states have legalized that now.

This is the first time there has been a ruling regarding this by the supreme court since they dodged the issue in 1939. It's a fringe issue really.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:51 am
by Ironman
I wish the hardcore left wingers would quit yacking and complaining about it. It just scares the moderates.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:32 pm
by Matt Z
I never meant to imply that the Supreme Court actually has the power to ban guns.

DC was not the only city with a handgun ban. Several other towns and cities had their own handgun bans including Chicago. Many of these bans have been struck down since the DC Gun Ban, and others will probably follow. This is in my estimation a step in the right direction.

I also support right-to-carry laws and the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:00 pm
by Matt Z
"I wish the hardcore left wingers would quit yacking and complaining about it. It just scares the moderates." - Ironman

I agree with you there, but I don't see them stopping anytime soon. Instead I think they'll be emboldened by the fact that their party now controls both congress and the whitehouse.

I think this is part of the reason why neither party can hold onto power for very long. Left-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives always manage to sabotage their own parties and alienate moderate voters.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:01 pm
by Matt Z
PS) A juvenile sharp-shinned hawk just dove into the bushes outside my window. It was going after some house sparrows.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:16 pm
by Matt Z
The way I see it both parties are flawed, but neither is all bad. I'm hopeful that the democrats can undo some of the damage done durring the Bush years, but also cautious that they may do some damage of their own.

I chose the Second Amendment/Gun Control to illustrate this point because it's a topic I know a lot about, but I'm sure there are other examples.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:16 pm
by wilburburns
Matt Z,

I have heard the Miltia argument, But unfortunately, I haven't had the time to keep up with all points and post my thoughts...

However, I do believe and know the Supreme Court Has the power to "Interpret" the Constitution and how specific Laws and Legal Cases may apply. The True Left Wing Interpretation of such laws does truly scare me, as well as "Some" Far Right Interpretations.

I also believe "WHO" a President appoints and gets approved as a Supreme Court Justice is far more important that what they actually do. As I have mentioned before, and we all know, Supreme Court Justices serve for Life, therefore, they will RULE much longer than the President himself.


Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:16 pm
by hoosegow
After staying mum for quite some time on this behemoth I created and after doing a lot of research lately, I've come to a conclusion. The real problem is not either party. It is the power elite known as the Bilderbergs. Unless we waken up and smell the roses, we are all doomed. There are too many sheep on both sides that blindly follow. Now that I have let the secret out, if one day you never hear from me again, you know why.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:27 pm
by Matt Z
Care to elaborate any further?

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:51 pm
by hoosegow
Do a search on them. There is too much stuff out there to believe in coincidence. Oh, and I am not mad. Close, but not there yet.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:25 am
by Ironman
Oh give me a break. What next, the Aluminati? Aliens?

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:10 am
by Proper Knob
Politics as summed up by Bill Hicks is about right for me.

"I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs!"
"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs!"
"............Wait a minute, there'e one guy holding up both puppets!!!!"

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:24 am
by TimD
I haven't heard of the Bilderbergs per se, ut do listen to Coast-to-Coast AM with George Nouri a lot, and think it has to do with what they call The New World Order set up by high echelon financial peoples. Was interesting listening, but never really bought into it It does make you think though, and if it was even remotel true, it's pretty scary.
but at my age, I'm not gonna be around a whole lot longer, so I don't worry about those things.