The NRA is calling for judicial legislation. Shameful.
Invalidating state laws that run afoul of the US Constitution (what’s ir actually says, not some imagined interpretation) is not judicial legislation. It’s what the courts are actually supposed to do.
I didn't see a sarcasm tag. Do you truly consider upholding the explicit Constitutional language of "shall not be infringed" to be judicial legislation?
Actually, what is shameful it the way the courts dance around the obvious intent of the Framers. It is obvious that the people who wrote "Congress shall make no law" in the first Amendment intended the first Amendment restrictions to apply only to the Federal government; and when they left that phrase out of the other Amendments restrictive on government power, they intended the restrictions to apply to the Federal Government and to the States as well. Marshall and Baron notwithstanding, it is pretty absurd to suggest that the various restrictions on how persons charged with a crime can be treated applied only to the Federal Government when the only Federal crime was treason and all those who actually were indicted were charged with violating State laws.
ML/NJ
I hope SCOTUS denies cert. The NRA has been pathetic in educating the public about what the Presser and Miller cases stand for, and has been actively enabling the building of second amendment jurisprudence on a foundation of lies.
Presser argued that he didn't need a parade permit for an armed military parade on public property. He claimed he didn't need a permit because the 2nd amendment protects the right to conduct armed military parades on public property. The Supreme Court said that states can require parade permits as a matter of keeping public order - this isn't a 1st or 2nd amendment issue. If it was a case about RKBA, says SCOTUS, in Presser, the states may NOT prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, and that's the case even if the 2nd amendment did not exist.
What does the NRA say the Presser case propounds? That the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states. But, says the NRA, that notion is antiquated. What a pathetically flaccid argument.
The Miller case stands for the proposition that the government may NOT prohibit keep and bear for military arms; in comes the Heller Court, asserting the exact opposite as the holding in Miller (Miller was convicted, the majority says -- FALSE), and the NRA goes "Woo Hoo, We win!"
The Heller case is good law, like Dred Scot is good law. It's there, it's on the books, and it is the law. But it's law built on compound lies, enabled by the NRA.
“The NRA is calling for judicial legislation. Shameful.”
How so? Sounds to me like the NRA is calling for the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution.
Since when is NOT judicially reversing the constitution “judicial legislation.”
The “living document” BS is just that — BS. The constitution either means what it says or it means nothing.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
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 as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle on the Second Amendment
Art 6 para 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
No, they're forcing the Supreme court to get off it's a$$ and finally rule on incorporation of the second. they've been ducking this issue since 1939 and it's TIME.
Either the second gets incorporated or the USA takes a HUGE step towards dissolution / civil war.