Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USSC And 2ND Amendment Close Call (5-4 Decision)
http://annem040359.wordpress.com/ ^ | June 28, 2010 | annem040359

Posted on 06/28/2010 2:25:43 PM PDT by Biggirl

The United States Supreme Court, on the last full day of this term, have ruled 5-4, a close call decision, have affirmed that under the USA Constitution, the right to “keep and bear arms” applies not only on the national level, but on the state and local levels.

(Excerpt) Read more at annem040359.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: constitution; supremecourt; ussc
The 2nd Amendment decided today by a razor close vote. Elections DO have results.
1 posted on 06/28/2010 2:25:47 PM PDT by Biggirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Of course, to the left, this is not settled law...unlike during the Roberts hearings where the concept of ‘stari decisis’ (settled law by precedent) was sacrosanct when dealing with abortion.


2 posted on 06/28/2010 2:38:57 PM PDT by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

When the number changes to ten from nine who breaks a tie ?


3 posted on 06/28/2010 2:40:17 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Our constitutional rights are being upheld by the barest of majorities. This is not what the Founders had in mind.


4 posted on 06/28/2010 2:40:32 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

The USSC is one of the few major failures in the founding of this country.

These clowns in black robes are not supreme and at best just political hacks disguised as judges. The progressives have been successful in destroying the legal profession and subsequently the judiciary.

5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4... tell me these are not politically biased decisions. The founders would be deeply disappointed in the quality of the USSC. They are not doing their job in making sure the US Constitution is followed. They are not supposed to try and make things right.

While the 5-4 this time went in the correct direction I take no joy in that it is only 1 swing vote away from taking one more right away from us.

We are at the point where we need to listen carefully to the words of Thomas Jefferson: “When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty.”

We need to make the government fear us once again.


5 posted on 06/28/2010 2:48:27 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

There are many in the Pro Tenth Amendment Camp that view this decision as Federal Over Reaching.

The Federal Government only has “Powers” the States and The People have Rights.

Somehow the Tenthers believe If The People have Rights that diminishes the Rights of the States.

The Tenthers argue that It is Proper for the States to Make Law that denies Rights to The People that are supposedly protected by the Constitution.

Would it be proper for any State to have an election the outcome of which denied Voting rights to any class of people that were not convicted Felons?

No, So why is it OK to have an election that denies the rights of The People under the First or Second Amendment?


6 posted on 06/28/2010 2:55:20 PM PDT by SwedeBoy2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
We need to make the government fear us once again.

Five Justices still do.

7 posted on 06/28/2010 2:58:10 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (If I don't like you, it's most likely your culture or your ideology that pissed me off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Whew!

The Kagan nomination must be defeated for sure.

(and Lindsay Gramnesty needs a lead enema)


8 posted on 06/28/2010 3:00:25 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwedeBoy2

“There are many in the Pro Tenth Amendment Camp that view this decision as Federal Over Reaching.”

.
Bleep!

The second ammendment was never limited to congress; it addressed an existing right that superceeds all government!
.


9 posted on 06/28/2010 3:05:18 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

While “Five Justices still do” that means we are only a heart beat away from bHo stacking the court so the 5-4 is not in support of the US Constitution.

The court could easily be an enemy of the US Constution and we have nothing but what Thomas Jefferson and the other founders gave us to counter their treason.


10 posted on 06/28/2010 3:09:30 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

“Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.”

.
Or it will be determined by forming a new government on the ash heap of the present failed one.
.


11 posted on 06/28/2010 3:11:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“The second ammendment was never limited to congress; it addressed an existing right that superceeds all government!”

Exactly So.

If you had bothered to read my whole post you would see that I am againsth this OverReaching arguement by some of the Tenthers.

I was pointing this out because Already there are some that are talking down this decision as OverReaching.

The Question is What Rights Properly belong to the People and which Properly belong to the States.

It is my view and I think we are in agreement on this, that The Constitution Plainly States that This Right under the Second Amendment belongs to the People.

The States Do have certain Rights But they do not include restricting Rights held by The People.


12 posted on 06/28/2010 3:17:34 PM PDT by SwedeBoy2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Agree.

Seems more and more that getting to the end and starting over is best in our lifetime solution. I will use the vote as long as they let me then it’s plan B.


13 posted on 06/28/2010 3:20:19 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The second ammendment was never limited to congress; it addressed an existing right that superceeds all government!

Correctamundo.

Self defense and the means to change government is a Natural Right. As such, man made law can neither enhance nor repeal this God given right.

From our Declaration: "That to Secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

14 posted on 06/28/2010 3:20:31 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We used to be citizens in a great republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WinOne4TheGipper

The Founders did not envision rule of the Republic by a committee of 9 people but that is the reality that will be made explicit when the left gets its 5-4 majority. No Republican or conservative Congress or President will ever defy the Court and when there is that eventual 5th left vote on that Committee the political makeup of the other two branches will cease to be relevant and 5 Justices will rule the country. Minutely.


15 posted on 06/28/2010 3:39:01 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SwedeBoy2
Only one right in the Bill of Rights is absolute and binding by its own wording on the States, the People, Congress, employers, and your grandmother and that is the 2nd. The others restrict Congress and its adjuncts. The second makes no reference to Congress. It says the RKBA shall not be infringed. It does not say Who shall not infringe. It says it shall not be infringed and is thus UNIVERSAL. Saying that the 14th Amendment is required to "incorporate" the 2nd to apply to the states is ingenuous and is a ploy to reduce the sweep of the only right that the Founders deemed absolute.
16 posted on 06/28/2010 3:46:05 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SwedeBoy2

RKBA is absolute by its own wording and is the only right worded that way.


17 posted on 06/28/2010 3:48:08 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

One for the good guys, even if it was “razor thin.”


18 posted on 06/28/2010 4:09:24 PM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Yes, I agree that the Second amendment’s wording is Unambiguous and Absolute.

And No I don’t think It should have to be “Incorporated”
thru the 14th or any other amendment.

Unfortunately there are many in the Legal Establishment that do not agree with us.

So how do we get a Right restored once a State or Municipality has taken it from us?

What is our Primary avenue of recourse? The court system.

Many in the Legal field Espouse a principal of “Balancing Rights”.

If the Members of Scotus were Strict Constitutionalists they would Say “It means what it says”, end of story.

Absolute Language does not allow for any “Balancing of Rights” or other Legal Mumbo Jumbo.

We do not need a permit from the Government to buy a book,we do not have our names placed in a Database to buy a book, we do not need to submit to training to buy a book, we do not need to pay a Fee to buy a book, we are not restricted in where we can carry a book?

Why are all of these restrictions placed against a Right that is not to be infringed?

Nevertheless in order to gain back lost ground there will be endless Legal Battles over every niggling detail pertaining to this Right.

There are Few alternatives.

SCOTUS is made up of Lawyers and they will seek to keep their fellow Lawyers gainfully employed, By endless challenges to Infringements of this Right.


19 posted on 06/28/2010 4:35:43 PM PDT by SwedeBoy2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

Remember in the next two MAJOR Novembers, this year and in two years.


20 posted on 06/28/2010 5:24:41 PM PDT by Biggirl (Pray for the people and animals affected in the Gulf of Mexico by oilspill. =^..^=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

To me, the first thing that should be asked in the Kagan hearings is this:

Today, four members of the Supreme Court proved that their reading comprehension, at least when it comes to the constitution, is nil. They refused to recognize a right that is printed right in front of their faces in the second amendment. These same justices will invariably find things in the constitution which are not there, such as the right to an abortion or the separation of church and state. Ms. Kagan, if your nomination is confirmed, will you demonstrate a reading comprehension that is superior to that of these four judges?


21 posted on 06/28/2010 5:42:42 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson