fncceo
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2016
- 45,139
- 38,816
- 3,615
Dobbs & Bruen – the crudeness of the decisions is its own message
- Thread starter C_Clayton_Jones
- Start date
The opposite! It strengthens it!
And we have fundamental rights granted to us, in the constitution...rights not mentioned.... The constitution specifically says we have so many more rights not mentioned in the constitution, and specifically states that our rights are NOT LIMITED to what they listed in the bill of rights?
No it weakens it.
Those rights belong in the states purview, not the federal government.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
Perhaps in some places but not everywhere in the U.S.
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
Prior to that opinion, residents of the District of Columbia could not possess a firearm anywhere within the District including in their own home unless if was disassembled which made them functionally inoperable and useless as a weapon for self-defense.
Last edited:
candycorn
Diamond Member
How dare the framers in 1787 not include an article or two about a medical procedure that wouldn't be invented for 200 years. I guess they were too busy with the deeply rooted American traditions Alito loves so much...like screwing over the Indians and slavery.‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.
The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.
Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’
Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Diamond Member
I'm not a hunter and I was not allowed to bear arms in the state where I grew up but I should not see that as an infringement of my 2nd amendment rights?
So no, while the right to purchase and own a weapon may have been the law of the land, the right to carry said weapon was not and has not been practiced FULLY everywhere in the U.S. And I am not a prohibited person.
In fact, as previously indicated, in D.C. you couldn't even own a weapon in your home unless it was in bits & pieces meaning it was not a functional firearm. It was rendered useless by law and particularly useless for defense. That's the games our government plays with us, along with refusing to allow a firearm for self-defense and instead pointing to calling the police if you need help, even though doing so is seldom an effective remedy.
On top of that, the same Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect any specific individual and if you or someone else dies as a result of police inaction, well then too bad so sad (Gonzalez v Castlerock).
Why?
The courts have constantly ruled that these kind of State laws interfering with our individual and personal choices are unconstitutional.... State sodomy laws, state birth control laws, gay marriage, gay adoption, and state ban on abortions, medical decisions ....ALL were overturned by SC Rulings.... And those things that we had a right to were NOT listed individually in the constitution.
Last edited:
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,465
- 49,477
- 2,605
Where in the constitution was power given to our government to force a 9 month pregnancy on a woman or girl if she and her husband or partner are not ready to have children in their lives yet? Not enough money to be a good parent, still in college, still a child and under age, date raped, or birth control didn't work, or partner left when they found out and were not ready to be a father etc etc etc???
where in the constitution does it give government the power to know what goes on in our bedrooms, or in our doctor's offices, about our own medical conditions, to even know we have had sex and gotten pregnant???
When did the Speaker, the VP, the President, and the Senate leader claim those were constitutional.
- Banned
- #49
You stupid Moon Bats don't understand the simple biological concept that there are two human beings in a pregnancy and there is no Constitutional right for one of them to be murdered by the other one as method of birth control.‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.
The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.
Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’
Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.
The cruel thing is when you Libtards are fixated on the Feminazi demand that children be killed as a method of birth control and that is despicable.
Why would a government, the source of POWER in the country need to codify a Right for itself?
That is such a ridiculously stupid interpretation it could only come from a progressive.
The Bill of Rights, was SPECIFICALLY for the citizens of this country.
It LIMITED what government is allowed to do to the individual, and the 2nd was specifically about empowering the PEOPLE the means to remove a corrupt government.
nobody said you don’t have a right to privacy‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.
The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.
Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’
Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.
You took the situation in DC and extrapolated to being the situation across America? That is simply false, it was not like that anywhere else. Do you not understand how utterly insane the left's gun control position is while looking at DC? Guns were completely banned, yet only a few years ago DC was the murder capital of the country. How do you people reconcile that?
are you suggesting someone doesn’t have a right to defend themselves?
In roe and most importantly in Casey, the SC ruled it was unconstitutional for states to invade in their citizens rights of autonomy, when it came to abortion....with limits.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Not the way Roe v Wade was presented, without a federal law the Roe v Wade decision was vulnerable that is why Congress should have addressed it a long time ago.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 86,465
- 49,477
- 2,605
- “How many legs will a calf have,” asked a fellow of another whose depth and shrewdness he wanted to prove, “if you call his tail a leg?” “Five,” was the answer. “O no, that’s impossible.” “But certainly, he will have five.” “Does your calling his tail a leg, make it a leg?” “Well, now, I never thought of that.”
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 82,721
- 41,357
- 2,615
It’s not in the Constitution… sorry
Doesn’t mean you can’t. Just that there is no Constitutional justification
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 82,721
- 41,357
- 2,615
Bullshit. SCOTUS can over turn laws just as easily
so you do believe you can?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
BREAKING: US and China agree to reduce tariffs for 90 days- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 3
-
Zone1 Loss of Wager Money Possibly the Reason Why Someone Would Threaten to Stab to Death the Children of Houston Astros Pitcher L McCullers?- Started by NewsVine_Mariyam
- Replies: 0
-
-
