Posted on 06/26/2008 8:44:48 PM PDT by Baron OBeef Dip
WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAHHH!!!
Remember the adult-speak in the “Charlie Brown” cartoons???
That’s all I hear...
Chemerinsky is one of the biggest left-wing activists in the legal community. He’s what Obama would oppoint to SCOTUS.
To properly articulate and defend what is stated in the 2nd, 1st, or any other portion of the Constitution, you simply DIAGRAM THE SENTENCE. The words that were used and the way they were used frame the definition of what was meant.
This is why liberals must go about redefining and go about in other ways altering the meaning and usage of words. They do it so that they can then manipulate the minds of people to their point of view. Words form the basis of thought so when you move the meanings of words and their usage, you alter thought.
Either the words in the 2nd mean exactly what they mean when they are defined and used according the rules of the English language, or words are completely of no value for use as a means of communication. EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER.
Liberals can't read when it suits their purpose.
More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.Where is the barfbarf alert?
How does upholding the Second Amendment qualify as “activism?”
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he was on Obama’s short list for Federal court nominees.
What’s worse is the man is the author of the most popular Constitutional Law hornbook in the country. That’s a whole lot of influence over a whole generation of future lawyers.
“Judicial Activism”? I couldn’t stop laughing when I heard this on the news. Guess it just matters whose ox is gored, eh? This guy must have the IQ of a radish.
Erwin’s a liberal imbecile, but there are lots and lots of them around; look for much more of this sort of hand-wringing over today’s SCOTUS second amendment ruling in the weeks ahead.
Cognitive Dissonance.
What an asshat (pardon me) this Ewrin Chemical(sp?) is-How is upholding the 2ND AMENDMENT “judicial activism”..what a flippin ignorant (useless) idiot!
That's a flat out lie. The Miller decision said no such thing, and if the writer doesn't know that he's too ignorant to be writing the piece and if he does know it he's a liar.
In the 1939 Miller decision simply held that in view of no evidence having been presented that Miller's sawed off shotgun had some utility as a militia weapon Miller did not have a constitutionally protected right to possess it. Obviously the 1939 court believed that the 2nd only applies to arms that are in common use by military organizations. But it did NOT say that a civilian has no Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, just that the weapon kept and borne must be one that is in common military usage. The perfectly clear implication of the decision was that had the shotgun been shown to be a weapon in common usage by the military Miller's possession of it would have been constitutionally protected.
The Supreme Court only defers to the legislature when they stay within the boundaries of the constitution.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Second, the U.S Supreme Court never ruled in 1939 on what rights the Second Amendment affords to Americans. It addressed the question in Heller. As I said, if liberals don't like the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment as an individual right, they can have Congress try to repeal it. But its repugnant as well as dishonest of them to have the courts take away by fiat a right the Constitution recognizes Americans already have. They should deal with the fallout of Heller instead of running around like a bunch of brats screaming they don't like it. Well, we conservatives don't like like liberal judicial activism!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Chemerinsky doesn’t make this stupid argument because he’s stupid. He makes this stupid argument, because he thinks that we’re stupid. Chemerinsky knows what he’s doing, he is not stupid, he is evil. As are the Clintons. As for Obama, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, he’s stupid and evil.
Perfect. That’s that case in a nutshell. Best explaination of Miller I have read.
Thanks
One of the most important portions of the legal argument was concerning the framers’ intent. Their “intent” is supported by all kinds of documentation written by the likes of Jefferson. Even if the amendment itself is nebulous or ambiguous, there is certainly nothing “ambiguous” about the intent of Jefferson's other writing on the subject!
This ass is just another sore loser, working his butt off, trying to find parity between activist and strict constructionist judges. Keep looking, fella, you've not found it yet.
I think you are absolutely correct. The armed citizenry were to be our defense. Any group of loosely organized citizens were considered a militia, as opposed to an army. Remember, our European forefathers were afraid of the organized standing armies found in Europe.
Those laws were passed legitimately by the elected officials of those states, too. And those were STATE laws, not mere city statutes.
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.