The Biden Presidency

Is there going to be any retrospective, or introspective, on the hunter Biden laptop story?

Are the commies who called us all stupid, not feeling how uselessly stupid they are themselves?

Or is this yet another issue that will be pretended never happened until the next thing pops up
 
sturg33 said:
Is there going to be any retrospective, or introspective, on the hunter Biden laptop story?

Are the commies who called us all stupid, not feeling how uselessly stupid they are themselves?

Or is this yet another issue that will be pretended never happened until the next thing pops up
Click to expand...

Obviously the latter.
 
sturg33 said:
No.

Back about the coordinated collusion to cover it up

You were wrong.

Again.

You should be embarrassed for being so stupid
Click to expand...

Yeah, being called stupid from the likes of you should really bother me lol

You really think highly of yourself haha
 
sturg33 said:
Is there going to be any retrospective, or introspective, on the hunter Biden laptop story?

Are the commies who called us all stupid, not feeling how uselessly stupid they are themselves?

Or is this yet another issue that will be pretended never happened until the next thing pops up
Click to expand...

BDS
 
nsacpi said:
I think John Paul Stevens' dissent in District of Columbia v Heller is something that one day the court will move toward.

Key sentences from the dissent: "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms."

It is worth noting as Stevens does in his dissent that several states submitted language on the right to bear arms that did NOT place this within the context of a militia and that those proposals were NOT adopted.
Click to expand...

A court made up of liberal justices could move the ball back towards Stevens position but I don't know if they'd go that far. Dissents help keep legal theories alive but a dissenting judge has fewer prudential concerns to worry about. When dissenting, you don't have to concern yourself with upsetting the law, taking a position that's too extreme, or causing people to lose respect for the judiciary.

I also think Stevens was entirely off base. Full disclosure, I don't have much respect for Stevens as a jurist, especially towards the end of his career. I think he saw himself as a super-legislator rather than an arbiter of the law. It's a common affliction of SCOTUS justices, he was just worse than most.

The problem with Stevens position is that it runs counter to the plain language of the amendment. One of the strongest guiding principles of interpretation of any contract, statute, or constitution is to look at the plain language. Judges get into trouble when they start torturing language to mean something different than it says or when they start adding words to change the meaning. You get into other aspects of interpretation when dealing with ambiguity. If the plain language has a meaning then you should go with that.

Here, the plain language says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The part of the sentence about the militia reveals a justification of the framers' reasoning but the amendment is not written for the militia section to be a limitation on the right to keep an bear arms.

If it had said "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way so as to limit the states forming well regulated militias" you'd have a different scenario. The language there sets the well regulated militia as the bounds of the right to keep an bear arms and would allow regulations outside that context.

The only way you get to the militia portion of the amendment being a limitation is to assume the framers screwed up when they wrote the amendment and that all the states that ratified the amendment knew what they meant. You have to go in and edit the language to make Stevens' interpretation make sense.

That being said, I don't agree with the people that say you should be able to own a suitcase nuke or missile launcher if you want. No rights in the Constitution are absolute. All can be limited if the regulation is narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest. Not even speech is absolute. So it's not an all or nothing situation.
 
Thing is several states proposed versions of 2A that did not place the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. And those versions were not adopted. Why have any mention of militia. It is there. The historical context makes it pretty clear that 2A is about states rights vis a vis federal power, and is meant to prevent the federal government from suppressing the militias that the states had at the time.

Here's a long article by the historian John Ellis that discusses the historical context.

https://www.americanheritage.com/what-does-second-amendment-really-mean
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
I have no idea who ordered it up.... but Biden hasn't ordered it down. He does what every tyrant does... surrounds himself with guns while disarming the citizens
Click to expand...

lol

yes

just like the great gun purge of the Obama years

they are back for more

lol
 
nsacpi said:
Thing is several states proposed versions of 2A that did not place the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. And those versions were not adopted. Why have any mention of militia. It is there. The historical context makes it pretty clear that 2A is about states rights vis a vis federal power, and is meant to prevent the federal government from suppressing the militias that the states had at the time.

Here's a long article by the historian John Ellis that discusses the historical context.

https://www.americanheritage.com/what-does-second-amendment-really-mean
Click to expand...

Justification is not the same as a limitation.

If we start digging into the justifications of why certain rights were put into place, we could really start to undermine some rights we take for granted. For example, it's pretty clear the Framers wanted to protect political discourse when they established the first amendment. Today, however, the first amendment stretches far beyond the justifications for such an amendment at the time. You can lie about being a veteran while begging on the street and your lies are protected by the first amendment.

The Bill of Rights isn't in force only to the extent the framers justified it.

As for this one including the militia language, again, it reads as a justification or perhaps and emphasis. They're stripping the power to infringe on the right to keep an bear arms and as part of this they're explaining to states they're not banning militias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top