Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

Our guns protect that right, not some lawyers' scribbling. If it dared to, the Court could easily interpret the Constitution as gun ownership only relating to the National Guard, when in uniform. Why would you trust an unelected tribunal more than your elected representatives?

Really? Is that how the citizens of D.C. got their right to own firearms protected, they just went into Congress and started shooting

The court could not "easily" make such an interpretation considering they've already decided that there is an individual right to own firearms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

prometheusbound and johnwk argue beautifully but wrongly for their point.

The Constitution, its history, and our judicial narrative completely validate the SCOTUS as the ulitmate arbiter of constitutionality.

Tis what tis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you're going to take away the power of the Court to interpret laws and strike down those that in their opinion are unconstitutional,

how would you deal with a situation where a legislature somewhere outlawed gun ownership, outright?

Our guns protect that right, not some lawyers' scribbling. If it dared to, the Court could easily interpret the Constitution as gun ownership only relating to the National Guard, when in uniform. Why would you trust an unelected tribunal more than your elected representatives?

Really? Is that how the citizens of D.C. got their right to own firearms protected, they just went into Congress and started shooting

The court could not "easily" make such an interpretation considering they've already decided that there is an individual right to own firearms.

Hmmm. . . ask the surviving Germans how they feel about the German national legislature passing an Enabling Law allowing Hitler to govern with dictatorial power.

PrometheusBound writes (edit) foolishly, refusing to be contextualize the total experience and narrative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We are talking about judges and Justices being held accountable when they arrive at decisions which violate the fundamental rules of constitutional law and are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

According to whom?

That would be according to the people who employ them, aka the people of the United States of America.

Is it really such an alien thought to you that the government is accountable to the people it putatively represents?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress can always impeach.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

You are trying to say that the amendment is not an expansion of the citizens' rights.

Of course the rights are expanded.

For instance, when prohibition and poll taxes were in place, the citizen's rights were restricted.

The reason why the Constitution restricts (or more accurately in some cases defines) the government and not the people/people's rights is very obvious. If the bill of rights (and following ammendments) serves to list the rights of citizens-then there's a lot that's missing. If the purpose was to list rights of citizens-then there would be tons of freedoms missing, and it would be nearly impossible to list everything. Thus they restricted the government (and state governments) in the Constitution.

Silly example here, but the point is the same: do you have the right to wear a blue shirt? According to your logic-you don't. Because the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to wear a blue shirt.

Notice what he refers to when he talks about the enumeration. He said "powers"-NOT "rights". Again big distinction.

James Madison himself said:

"My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration."

-Letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1788

Which in no way invalidates my point about the poll tax or prohibition.

Do you understand what "enumeration" means?

It does not mean you get to throw in thing you do not like.

Enumeration simply means a list. However as I said Madison referred to the POWERS listed-NOT the rights listed. You can dance around this all you want, but the language is written as it is. Both in Madison's words (who crafted the Constitution more than anybody else), and the actual language in the amendments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you misinterpret Madison and that is the end of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our guns protect that right, not some lawyers' scribbling. If it dared to, the Court could easily interpret the Constitution as gun ownership only relating to the National Guard, when in uniform. Why would you trust an unelected tribunal more than your elected representatives?

You’ve got to be kidding.

‘Elected representatives,’ aka politicians, are utterly untrustworthy – they’re motivated only by what earns votes and appeases the voters.