Dr. Edwin Vieira (Havard) on "Gun Control"

[The2ndAmendment]

partially but first and foremost it was the violation of the Fourth.

and, unfortunately, people generally don't know the Bill of Rights

One cannot violate the Third Amendment, without violating the Fourth Amendment.

It functions as a permanent search and seizure of your household; it annihilates your sovereignty as enshrined in the Ninth Amendment.

So the critical part is that the Third Amendment is violated, because that automatically implies that the Fourth Amendment was violated.

However, one can violate the Fourth Amendment, without violating the Third.

There is only one way to enforce the Third Amendment, and that's the amendment that precedes it; whereas the Fourth Amendment can be enforced retroactively through the courts, dismissing evidence or sometimes the entire case.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I don't even try to read "Walls of Text".

Please put in some breaks and format it so it can be read.

There are wonderful things called developed paragraphs. Literate people use them. Try them some time.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I don't even try to read "Walls of Text".

Please put in some breaks and format it so it can be read.

There are wonderful things called developed paragraphs. Literate people use them. Try them some time.

He said that months ago before I edited the OP, apparently the spacing and line breaks didn't survive the copy and paste.

 

[regent]

Why are posters and others trying to do the Court's job of interpreting the Constitution? It will all be done in good time; until then the laws and court cases regarding all of the amendments are are considered valid and Constitutional.

 

[Vox]

Why are posters and others trying to do the Court's job of interpreting the Constitution? It will all be done in good time; until then the laws and court cases regarding all of the amendments are are considered valid and Constitutional.

SHEEPLE in need of nanny detected

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why are posters and others trying to do the Court's job of interpreting the Constitution? It will all be done in good time; until then the laws and court cases regarding all of the amendments are are considered valid and Constitutional.

[MENTION=35264]regent[/MENTION]

That's not the Court's job, that's the Jury's job.

Thomas Jefferson:

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

This is why trial by jury is protected in the fifth, sixth (implied) and seventh amendments.

Jury nullification has become the law of land in New Hampshire as of 2012; finally restored to its Constitutional glory.

The Jury is the People, and therefore it is the responsibility of the People to learn and discuss and inform others about the Constitution. This learning/discussing/teaching is protected by the First Amendment, which protects communication and expression.

So the nature of your post suggests that you have a problem with United States Citizens communicating with each other about the Constitution, therefore it seems that you have a problem with the First Amendment, I am wrong?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why are posters and others trying to do the Court's job of interpreting the Constitution? It will all be done in good time; until then the laws and court cases regarding all of the amendments are are considered valid and Constitutional.

Only a Jury can interpret the Constitution. If the Jury acquits, even the US Supreme Court cannot overturn the acquittal.

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence

 

[Steven_R]

Why are posters and others trying to do the Court's job of interpreting the Constitution? It will all be done in good time; until then the laws and court cases regarding all of the amendments are are considered valid and Constitutional.

The courts are just a tool. The Constitution is ours, as in We The People, not just for some judge to put his stamp on. That's why it was written in a plain and simple language, so that normal everyday people could understand it. It shouldn't need lawyers and judges to tell us what we can plainly read.