Posted on 02/10/2008 9:18:18 AM PST by An Old Man
(Justiciability is “‘not a legal concept with a fixed content or susceptible of scientific verification. Its utilization is the resultant of many subtle pressures . . . .’”)
(Excerpt) Read more at abanet.org ...
It would seel that some of the socialists you people elected (Not me, I would rather crawl over broken glass than vote for these cretans!) and I want you to know more about what they are up to. In case you are not familiar with them I have provided their names below so that you can check them out for yourselves:
This morning I was doing some reading of the briefs filed in the case of Heller vs. Dc and stumbled across this gem on page 19 of the "BRIEF OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL"
C. Disputes Regarding Second Amendment Constraints On Federal Laws Relating To The Use Or Possession Of “Arms” Generally Should Be Deemed Nonjusticiable
This case provides the Court an opportunity to consider whether certain claims based on the Second Amendment should be deemed nonjusticiable. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968) (Justiciability is “‘not a legal concept with a fixed content or susceptible of scientific verification. Its utilization is the resultant of many subtle pressures . . . .’”) (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 508 (1961)); cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 183-86 (1992) (discussing cases finding Guarantee Clause claims nonjusticiable issues committed to Congress). When evaluating whether a case presents a “political question” best left to the political departments, the Court considers whether there is:
* Congressman Fattah served as the lead Member on this
I am sure you will recognise some of your favorites here.
I wonder how I will use the word "Justiciability" today?
Semper Fi
An Old Man
I’m just guessing, but they are all dims, aren’t they? The names I recognize are.
These are the people who subscribe to the notion that they can take things away from you and give them to someone else who needs them more than you do!
Semper Fi
An Old Man
PS: I luv Math also!
Gotta love this...
Much or all of the original significance of the Amendment has dissipated with the passage of time and changes in society.
If Respondent and the court below were correct that individuals have a right to use or possess weapons under the Second Amendment unrelated to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” [...] neither this Court nor the courts of appeals have articulated “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” for ascertaining the contours of such a right or how it might apply to contemporary society.Amazing.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Few Americans are aware of this stuff..and it shows.
It reads like a catechism of liberal relativism. These people are beyond contemptible...
Sure I can. After all our Indoctrination Centers (Public Schools) no longer teach anything about the Constitution or why the US war for independence occurred.
After our population exits the Indoctrination Centers the popular media picks up reinforcing the ideas implanted by the Indoctrination Centers and should the young minds full of mush move on to higher levels of indoctrination these ideas of the Founders are further discounted and ridiculed with higher levels of socialist ideology.
The benefits of the Age of Reason will not be permitted to pass to another generation by the adherents of Marx, Stalin and Moe.
“neither this Court nor the courts of appeals have articulated “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” for ascertaining the contours of such a right or how it might apply to contemporary society.”
This is as much as an admission that the government should fear an armed citizenry. It’s easier for a totalitarian government to drive tanks over unarmed people.
All the posturing of the leftist liberal gun-grabbers won’t change the text and intent of the Second Amendment. It is not ambiguous. It is not confused or confusing.
The stink and issues raised by this portion of the brief are the latest salvos from the anti-constitutionalists among us.
SCOTUS needs to come down loud and clear on this one. The very future of this grand experiment hangs in the balance.
Lock and Load.
Actually these loons want to take government out of the loop. Instead of the government robbing you of your savings and property and giving it to losers on welfare, they want to take your guns so the losers, once you are defenseless, can use their illegal guns to rob you of your savings and property.
Precisely. The Founders recognized the critical importance of the citizenry’s ability to take up arms against oppressive government. Was this not the foundational test of our own revolution? The more things change the more they remain the same.
ping!
All socialists, queers, race baiters. What a group!
I suppose it’s somewhat positive that they only got 18 out of 435 members to sign on to it. Maybe only 4% of congressmen agree with it?
Actually, the queers are on our side. Read the brief from Pink Pistols, http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacPinkPistols.pdf
They make new arguments that I find quite persuasive, and that will speak especially to the liberal members of the Supreme Court:
First, if the Second Amendment protects the right of states to arm National Guard members, and gays are excluded from military service, then gays are excluded from this right.
Second, if the military can choose who is eligible to serve (e.g. by excluding gays) then the Second Amendment spells out no new right, because they can already choose who it applies to, so what exactly is it doing in the Bill of Rights.
(They make others as well.)
Incidentally, the NRA magazine interviewed the Pink Pistols some years ago, and they said they got a lot more grief from liberals for supporting gun rights than they ever got from conservatives for being gay.
First, if that's true, then I'm sure it would be a slam dunk to strike it from the Constitution. (Cough!)
Second, notice that this is a tacit admission of the strong individual rights interpretation: They are saying it means that people did have the right to keep and bear arms, however, times have changed and it's no longer appropriate. Which puts the opposition (we, the good guys) in the position of AGREEING with them that it's exactly what it meant, but that times haven't changed and the threat of criminal or tyrannical attack remains present today, but thanks for admitting that it means a strong individual RKBA.
A nation born in the chaldron of revolution cannot stray far from its roots lest it become that which it revolted against.
Is it time yet?
Semper Fi
An Old Man
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.