Posted on 07/03/2010 4:43:25 AM PDT by IbJensen
So we fight for what’s right and what we believe in. Or we sit on our corrupt keisters and let the world go to hell in a handbasket while we play our games! I think there’s been too much keister sitting and not enough fighting (on my part at least). I enjoyed the two thread discussion too.
Can I have some time to think about it? ;-p
At least Hatch announced he would not support her appointment. He’s a NAY vote. I don’t believe the reasons he gave, that is, I think he’d have voted to confirm her, but for his fear of the electorate.
Precedent doesn't force itself to be misapplied. The problem is judges who misapply or improperly extend precedent, in order to get the outcome they want. That, coupled with a Congress that won't remove the judicial hacks.
Here's an example. Please bear with the extended excerpt from "Presser," I want to be fair to the Courts. As you read, just keep in mind, "the right to keep and bear arms doe NOT depend on the second amendment."
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) We think it clear that the [state laws] under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. ...It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the [state laws] under consideration do not have this effect.
So, the law in question in this case is basically a parade permit law. Presser marched with 400 armed compatriots, on public ways, and argued that the second amendment was a bar to requiring a parade permit. The only reason the Supreme Court discussed the second amendment was because Presser asserted the second amendment trumps parade permit laws.
The Supreme stated the basis for finding the parade permit law to be constitutional, as being a "police power" to keep general public order.
Modern courts, both state and federal, have cherry picked a fraction of the Presser decision, and thereby "made new law" via an openly corrupt application of binding precedent.
Rather than explain how and why the apparently contradictory parts of Presser aren't contradictory, the Courts have taken Presser as a greenlight for states to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Circuit, in Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005), said, "Under Presser, the right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation on the power of states." Note, not that the 2nd amendment doesn't pertain, but directly contradictory to Presser, that the RKBA is not a limitation on the power of states. This is false.
One more. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is a US Supreme Court case that said the 2nd amendment protects weapons that have a military use, but since the trial record had no evidence about whether or not a short barrel shotgun had a military use, the case had to go back for an evidentiary finding. The decision below was a quashing of Miller's indictment, because the 1934 national Firearms Act was unconstitutional in light of the second amendment.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Now come to the Heller decision, where Justice Scalia asserts that the positive REVERSE of what Miller said! Scalia, indeed, all nine members of he Supreme Court, falsely asserts that Miller was convicted, and that the Miller Court found Military arms OUTSIDE the protection of the second amendment. This bullshit decision, Heller, has been used to uphold convictions where the defendant has pointed out that Heller got Miller wrong.
Congress has the power to impeach errant judges, but it won't - it won't because Congress and the Courts are both against freedom, if freedom is powerful enough to turn out a misbehaving government.
The system is dishonest to the core. It is full of rot, it deserves no respect. None.
Sticking pee-pees in one’s poo-poo, licking up fecal matter and bodily fluids while engaged in what the perverted refer as ‘sex’ is not only unsanitary; it’s hell-bent wrong!
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.