The vote was 5-4 and they are already talking about challenging it using NYC and the handgun ban as another court case.

The American People avoided, by the narrowest of margins, having a GOD-GIVEN right abolished and infringed by individuals sworn to protect that very right.

The Supreme Court was within ONE vote (one very unreliable vote) of DECLARING a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT Null and Void.

They were only prevented from Rescinding a Constitutional Right, in effect for 221 years, by one vote.

Needless to say, the Supreme Court does NOT have, has NEVER had, and was never INTENDED to have the power to do such a thing.

Nevertheless, the "Justices" of the Supreme Court have declared themselves superior to both of the other two branches of government combined, and act UNRESTRAINED as DESPOTS who MAKE and ENFORCE both LAW and POLICY for the entire United States by Judicial Fiat.


THIS WAS NOT A VICTORY.

It was merely a temporary reprieve from further oppression by this un-elected oligarchy which has usurped all ultimate power in this nation.  

We now live in a Tyranny.  Plain and simple.  We maintain the use of our GOD-GIVEN rights for but a little while longer, at the whim of a tyrant -- and only because the tyrant was in a generous mood.

Eyas, owning a gun is a God Given right? What planet is your church on? Do you actually think that Jesus would be carrying a Gat if he was walking the earth now?  I am a gun owner myself and want my rights protected but when you and others start throwing Gods name with guns around you start sounding like Chuck Heston and his goofy NRA babblings!

Bonaduce wrote:Eyas, owning a gun is a God Given right? What planet is your church on? Do you actually think that Jesus would be carrying a Gat if he was walking the earth now?  I am a gun owner myself and want my rights protected but when you and others start throwing Gods name with guns around you start sounding like Chuck Heston and his goofy NRA babblings!

I am actually an atheist.  I use the term "God-given" because it was a term used by our nation's founding fathers, and it is how otherwise-termed "Natural Rights" were understood by the founders and the People of America at it's founding, as well as the People of England and France prior to the founding of the United States.  The most influential proponent of this philosophy (which guided the founders in the design of our government) was John Locke, who was enormously influential among the architects of our nation.   In Locke's Two Treatises of Government he stated that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of the People and that if a government fails to preserve those rights, the People have the RESPONSIBILITY overthrow such government and set up a new government that adequately protects these "natural" or "God-Given" rights.

In short, the rights exist independently of, and prior to, the Constitution and the Government itself.  The rights which were considered "Natural" or "God-given" (as understood and put forward by folks like James Madison) are, in part, enumerated in the United States Constitutions first ten Amendments -- also known as The Bill of Rights.

I have no idea how old you are, what level of education you have, or where you went to school -- but you were poorly served as these are things I was taught in Social Studies Class in Grade School.

You should learn to actually KNOW something before setting forth such uneducated, and utterly asinine, drivel.

Please do not expect further response from me on this or any other post.  Clearly, you are either a child, have no more than a third-grade education, or have been recently lobotomized -- not worth anyone's time responding to.

Wow, Eyas I got your panties in bunch eh? Thats alright if you dont respond anyways you seem kinda snobby and prude like. Good day sir...

Bonaduce wrote:Eyas, owning a gun is a God Given right? What planet is your church on? Do you actually think that Jesus would be carrying a Gat if he was walking the earth now? I am a gun owner myself and want my rights protected but when you and others start throwing Gods name with guns around you start sounding like Chuck Heston and his goofy NRA babblings!

Now, there's no need to be hacking on Moses.

This is a MASSIVE EMBARASSMENT for JOHN ROBERTS. He, as CHIEF JUSTICE, BARALEY managed to UPHOLD GUN RIGHTS by the MARGIN of ONE VOTE. He HAS NO BUSINESS leading the SUPREME COURT. It should have been CLARENCE THOMAS or ANTONIN SCALIA, who were on the bench 20 YEARS before INCOMPENTENT FALIURE JOHN ROBERTS was. Roberts PARACHUTED in 2005 and IMMEADIATELY became CHIEF JUSTICE. Scalia(1987) and Thomas(1991) have been on the court for 21 and 17 YEARS, Respectively.

Ok you guys, I believe I’m about to take some heat but I will defend my position if necessary.
The gun law challenged in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns. The law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to “Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. Those authorized to legislate in the district of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the various United States, and not the residents who happen to live within the limits of Washington, D.C.

Now, with regard to the Second Amendment, which is part of our Constitution’s first ten amendments and commonly referred to our federal Bill of Rights, we must always keep in mind the explicit intentions for which the Second Amendment was proposed and then ratified.
The answer to this question is found in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..

And so, the very intention for the Second Amendment was to restrict the federal government’s power, including Congress, over the stated subject mater which happens to be “arms”. And let us not forget our Tenth Amendment which was sent to the state under the same Resolution intended to restrict the federal governments powers declares “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
This of course is the very wording intended to preserve and protect “federalism“, our Constitution’s plan, and is articulated by Madison when speaking to the adoption of our Constitution’s first ten amendments:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And what is the point in preserving federalism? Seems to me it is specifically intended to allow the people of each state to maintain home rule and adopt laws within the four corners of their own state Constitution. For example, and with respect to “arms“, the People of Pennsylvania declared the following in their Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776


Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms


“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”


Getting back to the Washington, D.C. handgun law. How could it be constitutional when is was not written by the Congress of the United States, which is the only body vested with power to legislate in Washington, D.C.? And, why did the SCOTUS even recognize a law which was not written by the constitutionally authorized legislative body?

JWK

johnwk wrote:Ok you guys, I believe I’m about to take some heat but I will defend my position if necessary.
The gun law challenged in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns. The law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to “Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. Those authorized to legislate in the district of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the various United States, and not the residents who happen to live within the limits of Washington, D.C.

Getting back to the Washington, D.C. handgun law. How could it be constitutional when is was not written by the Congress of the United States, which is the only body vested with power to legislate in Washington, D.C.? And, why did the SCOTUS even recognize a law which was not written by the constitutionally authorized legislative body?

JWK

No heat here.  But, the same question applies to regulatory agencies who routinely enact "regulations" that are treated as having the force of law.  How can Congress legally delegate their legislative powers to un-elected, unaccountable federal employees?  I have always maintained most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional and this is at the heart of my claim.

What? no backup on the whole "God-given" thing?

You guys are going to leave it up to the atheist to defend the term "God-given"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing unconstitutional about Congress, or the President, delegating authority so long as they have the power that they're delegating, and the ultimate power still remains in their hands.  I see nothing wrong with Congress delegating their authority to a Council to govern D.C.; but I agree that that Council needs to be accountable to CONGRESS and NOT to the residents of D.C..  This may or may not be a bad idea, in terms of preventing the residents of D.C. from governing themselves -- but that's how the administration of the District was supposed to be as described in the U.S. Constitution.

As far as Federalism goes, the State Law or State Constitution is intended to rule provided that it does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.  A particular State could NOT, for example, have it in their State Constitution that it's citizens specifically did NOT have the right to bear arms - or to freely speak - or to freely practice their religion - or whatever.

For instance, the NRA says that they're going after the Chicago ban next.  I cannot imagine that such a ban is constitutional according to the Illinois State Constitution - let alone the U.S. Constitution.  I don't know what the Illinois Constitution says on the matter of guns, or what kind of litigation or judicial rulings have already taken place in Illinois regarding the STATE Constitutionality of the Chicago gun ban.  But, if it has been found o.k., as far as the State Constitution goes, the SCOTUS can either overturn that decision (saying that it is not legal because of the Illinois State Constitution), or they could say that the State Constitution ITSELF is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution (2d Amdt) and therefore invalid.

The problem that I have is that the SCOTUS has repeatedly adjudicated State CRIMINAL Law issues that it has no business deciding -- a la Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.  The Federal Government does not establish CRIMINAL laws within the States, and the SCOTUS has NO RIGHT to take upon itself the decision about what the residents of a particular State find criminal.  Unless the SCOTUS overrules a State Supreme Court's ruling that a law is consistent with the STATE Constitution, OR unless they find that the STATE Constitution itself is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution -- they've got no business determining the U.S. Constitutionality of State criminal laws.  Which, of course, is exactly what they did in Roe, Lawrence, and others.  They simply by-passed the State Constitution as if it did not exist, and placed themselves in the position of LEGISLATING State criminal law.

In other words, the constitutionality of a law with regard to the STATE Constitution comes first.  Only if the State Court totally screwed up, or if the STATE Constitution itself is Unconstitutional (i.e., incompatible with the U.S. Constitution) should the Supreme Court of the U.S. be involved.  I don't know if either of these things is the case with the Chicago Gun Ban; but it clearly won't stop the SCOTUS from overstepping their bounds once again.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can nothing STOP these clowns on the Supreme Court?  They consider themselves the ULTIMATE arbiter and SOURCE of all Law in the nation.  They consider themselves OMNIPOTENT.  This is ridiculous.

I'd be perfectly happy if the Supreme Court of the U.S. were simply done away with.  ELIMINATED ENTIRELY.  

Would we have any less JUSTICE if they were gone?

Four Justices base their rulings on the U.S. Constitution, and that's awfully nice of them.  But there's no requirement that they do so; and there appears to be no functional recourse if they chose not to.  Four Justices routinely Legislate Communism from the bench; and one "swing-vote" appears to take hallucinogenic drugs before writing opinions.  What's to stop them?  Surely not the President.  Surely not Congress.  Surely not the American People.