Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know...

Summary of Heller

OYEZ - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Stevens Dissent

Justice Breyer

McDonald v Chicago

 

[whitehall]

The majority opinion sounds right to me. What seems to be the problem or are you waiting for further cut and paste instructions from Soro's tax exempt (thank you John McCain) propaganda sources?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The majority opinion sounds right to me. What seems to be the problem or are you waiting for further cut and paste instructions from Soro's tax exempt (thank you John McCain) propaganda sources?

What of the minority opinions, their arguments and reasoning?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Heller ruling is somewhat unique in its relative lack of cited case law and precedent; ‘gun rights’ didn’t become an issue until the second half of the 20th Century, when ‘gun control’ measures were enacted during the 60s, a consequence of assassinations of political figures and the popular perception of increasing gun violence.

The bulk of Scalia’s opinion is predicated on primary documents and sources, such as state constitutions after the Foundation Era, English common law, and an ‘understanding at the time’ by the people of the Founding Generation when the Second Amendment was ratified.

The Heller Majority thus composed a compelling and convincing argument for an individual right, and the minority opinion did the same with regard to a collective right, using much of the same documentation.

The political irony, of course, is that Stevens’ dissent could be used by the far right as justification of the notion that the Second Amendment addresses the right of the people to war against a Federal government perceived ‘tyrannical’:

The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the means by which to guard against that danger. But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The majority opinion, as we know, protects an individual right to posses a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Heller ruling is somewhat unique in its relative lack of cited case law and precedent; ‘gun rights’ didn’t become an issue until the second half of the 20th Century, when ‘gun control’ measures were enacted during the 60s, a consequence of assassinations of political figures and the popular perception of increasing gun violence.

The bulk of Scalia’s opinion is predicated on primary documents and sources, such as state constitutions after the Foundation Era, English common law, and an ‘understanding at the time’ by the people of the Founding Generation when the Second Amendment was ratified.

The Heller Majority thus composed a compelling and convincing argument for an individual right, and the minority opinion did the same with regard to a collective right, using much of the same documentation.

The political irony, of course, is that Stevens’ dissent could be used by the far right as justification of the notion that the Second Amendment addresses the right of the people to war against a Federal government perceived ‘tyrannical’:

The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the means by which to guard against that danger. But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The majority opinion, as we know, protects an individual right to posses a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

The minority opinions are predicated on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know...

Summary of Heller

OYEZ - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Stevens Dissent

Justice Breyer

McDonald v Chicago

Is the reason you left out the opinion written by the only black Justice on the Court stupidity, or racism?

 

[whitehall]

The majority opinion sounds right to me. What seems to be the problem or are you waiting for further cut and paste instructions from Soro's tax exempt (thank you John McCain) propaganda sources?

What of the minority opinions, their arguments and reasoning?

It don't matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know...

Summary of Heller

OYEZ - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Stevens Dissent

Justice Breyer

McDonald v Chicago

Is the reason you left out the opinion written by the only black Justice on the Court stupidity, or racism?

Minority opinions...not opinions written by minorities.




btw, follow the links. One of them contains the whole thing... good gawd you're a tool

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The majority opinion sounds right to me. What seems to be the problem or are you waiting for further cut and paste instructions from Soro's tax exempt (thank you John McCain) propaganda sources?

What of the minority opinions, their arguments and reasoning?

It don't matter.

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know...

Summary of Heller

OYEZ - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Stevens Dissent

Justice Breyer

McDonald v Chicago

Unless Miller vs. U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S. have been over turned they still have precedence

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know...

Summary of Heller

OYEZ - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Stevens Dissent

Justice Breyer

McDonald v Chicago

Unless Miller vs. U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S. have been over turned they still have precedence

precedence over what?

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position. - wikipedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Justice Thomas set a sect of conservatism (and parts of a liberal sect) on fire with this concurring opinion in McDonald (not a dissenting opinion)

Barnett and others hope that Thomas’s lone dissent has planted the seeds for a constitutional reawakening rooted in the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

So what happened to Justice Scalia? In Barnett’s opinion, Scalia “doesn’t like unenumerated rights, and he’s afraid that the Privileges or Immunities will sanction unenumerated rights.” Adds Barnett: “Perhaps he’s right to be concerned, but it certainly goes against his originalism.”

Is His Gun-Control Concurrence Justice Thomas?s Finest Hour? - Law Blog - WSJ

remember this one: unenumerated rights

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you’ve never heard of the Privileges or Immunities Clause? We’re not surprised. The clause was largely neutered in a set of cases decided in 1873.

So in order to extend the Second Amendment to the states, the court seemed to be left with the Due Process Clause. That is, the court would have to rule that the right to bear arms was a right so fundamental that there could be no lawful way to abridge it without violating due process of law.

But constitutional scholars have long argued that “incorporation” through the Due Process Clause was misguided. “It’s a pretty impossible concept to explain because the Due Process Clause was not the vehicle by which the 14th Amendment founders thought they were safeguarding fundamental rights,” said Douglas Kendall, the head of the Constitutional Accountability Center, to the WSJ’s Jess Bravin last year.

Commentators on the right and left urged the Supreme Court to reverse the 1873 cases and safeguard the right to bear arms through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Such a move could have opened an avenue for individuals to claim new rights, some which might have pleased liberals, others which might have pleased conservatives.

Judicial activism?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/28/is-his-gun-control-concurrence-justice-thomass-finest-hour/

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know...

Unless Miller vs. U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S. have been over turned they still have precedence

precedence over what?

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position. - wikipedia

OH you're using WIKI? COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE RELIABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unless Miller vs. U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S. have been over turned they still have precedence

precedence over what?

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position. - wikipedia

OH you're using WIKI? COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE RELIABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION.

we're not sophomores in an undergraduate class... ...please refute anything you assume wikipedia has wrong in the post....

what is it you don't get? Dante asked a quite simple question: "precedence over what? "

looking for clarification and a sense of context and knowledge. "Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know..."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

precedence over what?

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position. - wikipedia

OH you're using WIKI? COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE RELIABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION.

we're not sophomores in an undergraduate class... ...please refute anything you assume wikipedia has wrong in the post....

what is it you don't get? Dante asked a quite simple question: "precedence over what? "

looking for clarification and a sense of context and knowledge. "Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know..."

Miller identified the firearms that are protected by the second amendment. Miller also identified who was to supply those firearms.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know...

Summary of Heller

OYEZ - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Stevens Dissent

Justice Breyer

McDonald v Chicago

Unless Miller vs. U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S. have been over turned they still have precedence

precedence over what?

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position. - wikipedia

OH you're using WIKI? COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE RELIABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION.

we're not sophomores in an undergraduate class... ...please refute anything you assume wikipedia has wrong in the post....

what is it you don't get? Dante asked a quite simple question: "precedence over what? "

looking for clarification and a sense of context and knowledge. "Scalia v Dissenting Opinions in DC v Heller | 2nd Amendment | McDonald v Chicago

What is it people know and what they say they know..."

Miller identified the firearms that are protected by the second amendment. Miller also identified who was to supply those firearms.

Is Miller addressed in either/or DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago?

What is it people know and what they say they know..