Bestest Presidents

[Imran Siddiqui]

which is that the Second Amendment means different things according to who is reading and interpreting it.

Lets use another amendment. Is it ok for a city to ban speech against Bush because they are reading and interpreting the 1st Amendment that way?

I'm saying I think your interpretation is dead wrong, which is my original point .

But I'm sure lower court judges and city legislatures never took a civic lesson and would not form such foolish laws.

I see you also don't read. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated and Congress, State governments, and municipal governments pass unconstitutional laws all the time. What do you think SCOTUS strikes down all the time?

Ted Striker

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

which is that the Second Amendment means different things according to who is reading and interpreting it.

Lets use another amendment. Is it ok for a city to ban speech against Bush because they are reading and interpreting the 1st Amendment that way?

Hypothetical. Provide real world examples please.

And, don't think that the 1st Amendment isn't interpreted either. Laws against shouting fire in a building, regulating the content of radio, television, and movies, and pornography, these are all laws that would go against the first amendment.

Again, it's a matter of interpretation.

I'm saying I think your interpretation is dead wrong, which is my original point .

So you agree with the concept of interpretation? Thanks.

I see you also don't read. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated and Congress, State governments, and municipal governments pass unconstitutional laws all the time. What do you think SCOTUS strikes down all the time?

But these organizations are infringing on people's rights though??? Don't they know the rulings of the upper courts and use them as precedent?

[David Floyd]

But these organizations are infringing on people's rights though??? Don't they know the rulings of the upper courts and use them as precedent?

Sure they do, in some cases. But often they either don't know or don't care. They're professional politicians. If a bill was popular enough back home, they'd sponser it and get it passed, knowing the whole time that the Supreme Court would strike it down, just so they could use their support for the bill to gain political power.

[Ned]

Ted, given the wildly different interpretations of the Second Amendment by the people of the United States, it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to take up a case involving the Second Amendment. I would like to see them resolve two questions:

1) Does it apply to the States?

2) Does it protect the keeping and bearing of military weapons - what does the amendment mean by "arms?" Surely the Amendment has NOTHING whatsoever to do with keeping and bearing of weapons useful only for hunting.

The only prior case before the court that actually addressed the second issue expressly said that "arms" meant "military" arms.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ned
Ted, given the wildly different interpretations of the Second Amendment by the people of the United States, it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to take up a case involving the Second Amendment. I would like to see them resolve two questions:

1) Does it apply to the States?

2) Does it protect the keeping and bearing of military weapons - what does the amendment mean by "arms?" Surely the Amendment has NOTHING whatsoever to do with keeping and bearing of weapons useful only for hunting.

The only prior case before the court that actually addressed the second issue expressly said that "arms" meant "military" arms.

[Mr. Harley]

Speaking of grandstanding by politicians, note how the law banning "partial-birth abortion" was passed while flagrantly ignoring the SCOTUS requirement, that has consistantly been enforced by the majority, that it have a health of the mother clause (any law limiting abortion not having one has been struck down). These laws waste taxpayer money, use up the precious time of sadly underfunded federal courts, use up precious resouces of DOJ that could be spent on counter-terrorism cases so they aren't f****d up from the get go, etc. Oh, and there is no medical procedure called a "partial-birth abortion" and by not using standard medical terminology the politicians make the law sufficiently vague that again it guarantees court challenges all the way to SCOTUS, with the attendant waste of resources. But I couldn't be talking about the current Republican trend of catering to their fundie base (like Democrats catering to the anti-gun base). I would list my opinion on both groups, but Ming would ban me.

[Geronimo]

I wonder why they don't just move the trimester ban far enough back that 'partial birth' style abortions are never the method of choice for the remaining legal abortions.