Posted on 12/13/2010 7:42:07 PM PST by The Looking Spoon
It’s not just the Constitution that is a “living document,” as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer proved yesterday when discussing the Second Amendment. Breyer argued that James Madison only included the right to bear arms reluctantly, and only because the states wouldn’t sign the Constitution for fear of creating an overmighty central government. That’s why he voted against the majority in theHeller decision that overturned the federal handgun ban in Washington DC:
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.” Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms. Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.” Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said. “If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.”
Read the rest at Hot Air
Have you ever started a job where on day one you march into your boss's office and demand twice as much pay as the offer letter you signed stipulates? You're boss would be more befuddled than Biden after a conversation about long division. You inform your new boss that your ONLY CONCERN was to GET THE JOB so you agreed to anything that could get you over that goal line, and now it's time to take what you really want.
Take a poll and ask any random person if they would want twice as much pay as they're already getting for their job, you'll get a "yes" faster than a TSA interrorgation that asks Barney Frank if he's packin' heat (no guns involved, the officer is just really cute and he misunderstood the question).
Write down the results of your respondents, (or you can save yourself the time and just write 100% in the "yes" column), time stamp it, and now history is officially on your side.
Under which history of what universe is it true that anything in the constitution, a document Breyer has sworn to uphold, can be ignored due to the perceived motivation for its creation?
No offense to the Palinistas, but if people turned off Dancing with the Stars for even five minutes so they can be briefed on the fact that the "progressives" who sit on the Supreme Court today should be outfitted for masks resembling the pigs from Orwell's Animal Farm Democrats would never again see the White House on the sole basis of nominating justices to the Supreme Court.
This is real constitution shredding going on right in front of our faces, not like the unsubstantiated Air America hyperbole conservatives have to put up with from Breyer's ilk.
If the opinions of historians are so important to Breyer then maybe he should consult the ones who actually rely on history. Or better yet take the damn middle man out of it. Hot Air completely vaporizes Breyer's rationale using a devastatingly revelatory quote from Madison himself, so make sure check out the post (the link is in the above blockquote).
Total Lie..... Nothing in Madison's minute gives any hint at this. Nothing in print by Madison hints at this. Madison was profoundly shapped by Witherspoon and he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a total fire brand. More of the Big Lie from the Left...
I have been thinking this week how wonderful it would be to have a remake of the M1 Garand with modern materials as the standard defense weapon in the State of Texas. We need more guns. We already have several per man/woman/child in the state, but we need serious weapons to be produced/distributed/trained with within the State of Texas. Never have too many, there is never too much freedom
Trying to mind read and out guess the Founders is one of the most dangerous and ;loathsome judicial habits of the day. The Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
Who knew that Breyer had an Ouija board and could channel Madison and the other founding fathers. Peons like me have to actually read the Constitution where is says in pretty bold print the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed or words to that effect. Seems pretty clear to me. But then I can’t get into that private chat room that Justice Breyer has going with the founding fathers.
Hey Breyer!! They said what they meant you sactimonious windbag.
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.
-Sir Walter Scott
http://www.impactguns.com/store/product71382.html
I have been thinking this week how wonderful it would be to have a remake of the M1 Garand with modern materials as the standard defense weapon in the State of Texas. We need more guns. We already have several per man/woman/child in the state, but we need serious weapons to be produced/distributed/trained with within the State of Texas. Never have too many, there is never too much freedom
I like you.
Run back the audio. Commas, in the Constitution, are just as important as words. The accidental jurist zips RIGHT past the last one when he recites the above phrase...as if "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is directly connected to the previous phrase.
It's not accidental.
My thoughts were:
Carbon fiber stock
Lighter modern alloy (reduce weight)
Precision rifling
Option of a little longer barrel and scope mounts??
It is hard to improve on the clean lines of the M1. It is a military weapon of the old school. It was the finest ever made in it’s day, and still a formidable choice today.
Breyer is a liar, but then he is a liberal, but then i repeat myself. And these schmucks are ru(i)nning the country. Well, Molo Labe Breyer if you have the guts.
I agree. The M1A SOCOM shown here is a better choice than the M1. Its modern materials, lighter weight, 20 round detachable magazine and availability of 7.62mm NATO ammo worldwide makes it a winner IMHO. A modern, real M14 would be even better.
No anger here-no personal animus— but Breyer seems a perfect example of someone caught in the delusions of grandeur associated with certain forms of dementia.whether it be advancing age—or the affect of refined education on peculiar minds I do not pretend to guess.But we so disagree on the Second Amendment as well as his apparent flip flop for he told a law school some years ago that it is impossible for any to know what the framers intended, and strict construcitonalists were wrong to cite historical evidences in support of their opine.
The Constitution was a collective effort, and the result of compromises. Madison wrote the Second Amendment, based on what the representatives of the States said they wanted to see in the Constitution. It is what the States ratified. Unless and until it is changed by subsequent amendment, it remains in effect.
Breyer is simply projecting his own opinions into what he reads in Madison's writings, and using that to rationalize replacing the clear text and intent of the Second Amendment with them. Once it was ratified, it was not even within Madison's authority to change it, and it certainly isn't within Breyer's authority to do it on his behalf.
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.