I propose a new second amendment law

[Ralph Norton]

True, Congress/house and senate, with the Prez's sig, make the laws (or via overriding a veto).

but I do believe you should qualify that statement with this addition:

Scotus rulings can have the force of law on specific cases which impacts laws in states.
For example, Scotus, in Dobbs, repealed Roe, thus allowing states the freedom to ban abortions, or regulate them more severely than would have been allowed under Roe. Scotus rulings can repeal federal laws on constitutional grounds, prior court rulings, impact state laws, paving the way for states to enact, alter, or repeal laws aligned with their rulings. Scotus Rulings can establish constitutional constraints, via constitutional interpretation, which Congress and state legislatures will have to align their legislation with.
And then there are constitutional amendments, which require participation by congress and states, combined.

Anything in the above with which you disagree?

Yes. While everything you stated is, to my knowledge, correct, none of it is "making law".
Affecting law? Yes. Making it? no.

 

[Rumpole]

There is no solution and there shouldn't be. No limitations on an American's right to bear arms should be considered.

[...]

Only in the sense that crime cannot be prevented, but Congress and the states can, and should, try and put a dent in it.

Same goes for firearms, noting that Scotus has ruled that no right is absolute, and that they are subject to regulation by Congress and the states consistent with the Constitution and Scotus interpretations establishing constitutional constraints.

The language of the second amendment goes to the right, and the right, only, and does not state constraints beyond that right are not allowed. In other words, a reasonable constraint placed on a right by the Supreme Court does NOT equal an infringement on that right.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, but it has also allowed for certain reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, such as prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, regulating the commercial sale of firearms, and limiting access to particularly dangerous weapons.

So, while some may interpret the language of the Second Amendment as not allowing for any constraints beyond the right to bear arms, the Supreme Court has recognized that reasonable limitations on that right are constitutional and do not constitute an infringement on that right.

 

[progressive hunter]

Only in the sense that crime cannot be prevented, but Congress and the states can, and should, try and put a dent in it.

Same goes for firearms, noting that Scotus has ruled that no right is absolute, and that they are subject to regulation by Congress and the states consistent with the Constitution and Scotus interpretations establishing constitutional constraints.

The language of the second amendment goes to the right, and the right, only, and does not state constraints beyond that right are not allowed. In other words, a reasonable constraint placed on a right by the Supreme Court does NOT equal an infringement on that right.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, but it has also allowed for certain reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, such as prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, regulating the commercial sale of firearms, and limiting access to particularly dangerous weapons.

So, while some may interpret the language of the Second Amendment as not allowing for any constraints beyond the right to bear arms, the Supreme Court has recognized that reasonable limitations on that right are constitutional and do not constitute an infringement on that right.

you just explained how SCOTUS has violated its mandated intent,,

 

[Rumpole]

Yes. While everything you stated is, to my knowledge, correct, none of it is "making law".
Affecting law? Yes. Making it? no.

It's a point of view, really. While you are technically correct, Supreme court rulings, and case law, can have the force of law, which impacts our lives as strong as any law created by Congress. The only difference would be hierarchy and/or spheres of authority.

 

[Rumpole]

you just explained how SCOTUS has violated its mandated intent,,

One cannot mandate 'intent', one can only mandate behaviour. For example, you can mandate people to use seatbelts, (behaviour) but you cannot mandate people to 'intend' to use seatbelts (which goes to a mental state, hardly regulatable, I'd say).

Now then, you've alluded that SCOTUS has a mandate. Please illuminate, explain what you understand about this, and how my explanation would cause Scotus to violate that mandate.

 

[progressive hunter]

One cannot mandate 'intent', one can only mandate behaviour. For example, you can mandate people to use seatbelts, (behaviour) but you cannot mandate people to 'intend' to use seatbelts (which goes to a mental state, hardly regulatable, I'd say).

Now then, you've alluded that SCOTUS has a mandate. Please illuminate, explain what you understand about this, and how Scotus violated said mandate.

its already been explained to you,,

the constitution is clear they are only to confirm or reject if a law abides the constitution,,, nothing else,,

 

[Rumpole]

The SC's only duty is to decide if a given law is, or is not, Constitutional. If not, the SC will state why but it is up to Congress to "rewrite" it to comply.

Yes.....

The primary function of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and other government practices. This power is derived from the Constitution itself, which established the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the law.

However, the Supreme Court also has other functions. It serves as the highest court in the federal court system, and it has the authority to hear appeals from lower federal courts as well as from state courts. In addition to its role in interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court also helps to shape public policy by issuing decisions that have far-reaching implications for society.

Moreover, the Supreme Court also has an important role in promoting the rule of law and maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government. Through its decisions, the Court helps to ensure that government officials and institutions are held accountable to the Constitution and the laws of the land.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Neither have 200 million other gun owners.

However, we can agree that thousands of others didn't resist the impulse. They would have started with human silouette targets that should have signalled their intention of being able to kill people.

Some in one of the many US wars that were always available, and some would become mass shooters.

Would you like to go hunting for a progressive?

A good answer could get you that attention you're needing!

Almost all of your "thousands of others" are career criminal gang members. Normal, law-abiding citizens killing other law-abiding citizens are about as rare as people getting hit by lightning. You always criticize the USA for its wars. Where would you be if the US hadn't decided to first support YOUR country and the rest of the Empire in WWI and WWII against Nazi Germany? Without first, Cash and Carry and then Lend-Lease, the UK and your country would have gone down to defeat in 1942 or 1943 at the latest. In WWI, without millions of tons of food and war material supplied before the US entered the war, your military would have lost to the German Empire and without the massive influx of American manpower the Germans would have stalemated the allies. The French and British were on their last gasps of manpower and the German Sturmtroopen had changed the calculus to favor them over the trench-bound defenders who were still planning on cavalry winning the war.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes.....

The primary function of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and other government practices. This power is derived from the Constitution itself, which established the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the law.

However, the Supreme Court also has other functions. It serves as the highest court in the federal court system, and it has the authority to hear appeals from lower federal courts as well as from state courts. In addition to its role in interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court also helps to shape public policy by issuing decisions that have far-reaching implications for society.

Moreover, the Supreme Court also has an important role in promoting the rule of law and maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government. Through its decisions, the Court helps to ensure that government officials and institutions are held accountable to the Constitution and the laws of the land.

the constitution doesnt need interpreted,,

its written in simple english and says clearly what it means,,,

interpretation is whats caused all the problems,,,

 

[Rumpole]

its already been explained to you,,

the constitution is clear they are only to confirm or reject if a law abides the constitution,,, nothing else,,

That's not quite right, I'll repeat what I expressed to another member of this forum in comment #67:

The primary function of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and other government practices. This power is derived from the Constitution itself, which established the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the law.

However, the Supreme Court also has other functions. It serves as the highest court in the federal court system, and it has the authority to hear appeals from lower federal courts as well as from state courts. In addition to its role in interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court also helps to shape public policy by issuing decisions that have far-reaching implications for society.

Moreover, the Supreme Court also has an important role in promoting the rule of law and maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government. Through its decisions, the Court helps to ensure that government officials and institutions are held accountable to the Constitution and the laws of the land.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I always laugh when people say the 2nd amendment is to protect them from the tyranny of the government.
When everybody knows that an AR-15 or an AK-47 is at best going to slow the government momentarily, until they can bring in the heavy artillery, drones, and a military style strike force that no civilian, or civilian militia could stand up to.

Explain Afghanistan then.

 

[postman]

case law doesnt apply to constitutional issues,,

Case law is because of the Constitution.
The federal courts overturn or modify laws that don't comport with the US Constitution.

In fact there's a law at the court now that criminalizes soliciting illegals to come here, but it currently also criminalizes encouraging them as well. Which is a 1st amendment violation.

 

[progressive hunter]

That's not quite right, I'll repeat what I expressed to another member of this forum in comment #67:

The primary function of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and other government practices. This power is derived from the Constitution itself, which established the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the law.

However, the Supreme Court also has other functions. It serves as the highest court in the federal court system, and it has the authority to hear appeals from lower federal courts as well as from state courts. In addition to its role in interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court also helps to shape public policy by issuing decisions that have far-reaching implications for society.

Moreover, the Supreme Court also has an important role in promoting the rule of law and maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government. Through its decisions, the Court helps to ensure that government officials and institutions are held accountable to the Constitution and the laws of the land.

thats exactly right,,,

what is there to interpret about the 2nd A??

it clearly says the right of the people to have military grade arms,,

 

[Rumpole]

the constitution doesnt need interpreted,,

its written in simple english and says clearly what it means,,,

interpretation is whats caused all the problems,,,

That is categorically false. It is the Constitution which establishes the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of what is, and what isn't constitutional, which, per Marbury v Madison, grants the court the right of judicial review.

 

[progressive hunter]

That is categorically false. It is the Constitution which establishes the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of what is, and what isn't constitutional, which, per Marbury v Madison, grants the court the right of judicial review.

how doess that disprove what I said??
it just confirms it,,

 

[postman]

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws, including case law, must be consistent with it. This principle is known as the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. When a court decision conflicts with the Constitution, it can be challenged through the appeals process, ultimately leading to review by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees that the decision conflicts with the Constitution, it may be overturned.

The problem is, if a law has unconstitutional elements, the court can decide to overturn the law in total, or in part. It depends on how vital the remainder of the law is.

Such as, a law against murder, where one part of it violates due process. If they overturn the entire law, while they wait until congress can write another law, murder would be legal.

So often, where there is separability within the statute, leave standing the legal parts, and strike from the law, the unconstitutional parts.

That clearly "writes law"

 

[postman]

Explain Afghanistan then.

They didn't have an $850 BILLION budget.

 

[Donald H]

Almost all of your "thousands of others" are career criminal gang members. Normal, law-abiding citizens killing other law-abiding citizens are about as rare as people getting hit by lightning. You always criticize the USA for its wars.

Addressing the issue with the qualifications on WW2 and 1 is fine!

The mass shooting and gun violence in America, regardless of the excuses and qualifications can be something we don't need to debate.

The fact is, we are narrowing down the possibilities of why America stands so far out and alone.

The 'culture' of wars and killing that stands out on this forum is common to no other country at anywhere near the same level.

As I've said 'Progressive Hunter' even brags about his feelings in his screen name.

Thanks! We've done alright for today at least!

 

[Rumpole]

thats exactly right,,,

what is there to interpret about the 2nd A??

it clearly says the right of the people to have military grade arms,,

No, it says you have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

What is the right?

To keep and bear arms.

And what shall not be infringed?

The right.

Are there any rights extended beyond that right?

No.

The second amendment goes only to the right, subject to constitutional constraints set by Scotus.

The militia clause now refers the National Guard. In modernity, as opposed to 1787, when 'the people' and the 'militia' were for, all intents and purposes, the same, back in the day, but not today. They are separate.

Additional info:

The Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, most notably in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), where the court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. However, the court also acknowledged that the right is not unlimited and can be subject to reasonable regulation.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, it says you have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

What is the right?

To keep and bear arms.

And what shall not be infringed?

The right.

Are there any rights extended beyond that right?

No.

The second amendment goes only to the right, subject to constitutional constraints set by Scotus.

The militia clause now refers the National Guard. In modernity, as opposed to 1787, when 'the people' and the 'militia' were for, all intents and purposes, the same, back in the day, but not today. They are separate.

I noticed you said it "NOW" it means the NG,,

when did the constitution get amended to say that??

thats the problem with interpretation,,

the 2nd A clearly says what we need, why we need it and then how we get it,,

only a dishonest person claims it says different,,