The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

[woodwork201]

Wrong.

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.

Please show any reference to support the stupid idea that the Founders intended that the Supreme Court was to determine the meaning of the Constitution. Show it in law, in Supreme Court opinion, in any scholarly paper of the time.

The Constitution exists as it was written and amended, period. To suggest that it exists only in case law is to suggest that the Constitution was never more than a suggestion to the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court are our rulers and, ultimately, the source of all power and authority, rights, and privilege, within the United States.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Because of the necessity of a militia, the right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed, as a safe guard against the militia, should it go rogue.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Wrong.

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.

No where in Article 3 does it say that the courts have the power to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

No where in Article 3 does it say that the courts have the power to interpret the Constitution.

Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.

But C Clayton Jones is entirely wrong when he wrote:
{...
The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.
...}

Since the greatest threat to any individual is from corrupt authoritarian government, of course the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the right of insurrection. The Founders had just fought a revolution over that, and were not about to throw it all away by allowing a new dictatorship enslave them.
There can be no other possible purpose to the 2nd amendment.
Those claiming it is to ensure there is an organized militia like the National Guard, make no sense at all, because you don't need to add an amendment in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from disarming is own National Guard.

As for Heller:
{...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.
...}

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously since the single biggest individual need for self defense weapons comes from the threat of an authoritarian government, Heller does defend "insurrectionist dogma".

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.

But C Clayton Jones is entirely wrong when he wrote:
{...
The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.
...}

Since the greatest threat to any individual is from corrupt authoritarian government, of course the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the right of insurrection. The Founders had just fought a revolution over that, and were not about to throw it all away by allowing a new dictatorship enslave them.
There can be no other possible purpose to the 2nd amendment.
Those claiming it is to ensure there is an organized militia like the National Guard, make no sense at all, because you don't need to add an amendment in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from disarming is own National Guard.

As for Heller:
{...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.
...}

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Obviously since the single biggest individual need for self defense weapons comes from the threat of an authoritarian government, Heller does defend "insurrectionist dogma".

Reviewing legislation, to see if it's contrary to the Constitution, is the purpose of the courts.

Defending one's home against a rogue government agency, or a faction of the military isn't insurrection. Fighting against tyranny isn't insurrection. It's self defense. Re-visit the example I used involving violation of the 3rd Amendment. The only people talking about insurrection are the clowns on the Left.

 

[Rigby5]

Reviewing legislation, to see if it's contrary to the Constitution, is the purpose of the courts.

Defending one's home against a rogue government agency, or a faction of the military isn't insurrection. Fighting against tyranny isn't insurrection. It's self defense. Re-visit the example I used involving violation of the 3rd Amendment. The only people talking about insurrection are the clowns on the Left.

{...
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice.

Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary's power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason.
...}

 

[woodwork201]

Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.

No it's not. They review the law to see if it is constitutional and if the application is constitutional. They, of course, have their opinions of what the Constitution means but determining the meaning is not the objective. The objective is to determine if the law in the case they're considering is constitutional and/or if the application of the law in the case is constitutional. Considering the Constitution in their deliberations is in the Constitution.

What most people ignore or forget or never knew is that the Court has abdicated half of it's job, taking only cases with a constitutional question even though the Constitution requires that they function as the final court of appeal in any case. Our court system has taken the view that only constitutional violations warrant appeal but that was not the intention of the Founders.

Anyway, bottom line is that the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

{...
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice.

Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary's power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason.
...}

I was really impressed with your views and writing on the Constitution until I realized that you Bidened that post. From some of the built-in hyperlinks in the Bidened text, I assume you Bidened it from Wikipedia.

 

[Rigby5]

No it's not. They review the law to see if it is constitutional and if the application is constitutional. They, of course, have their opinions of what the Constitution means but determining the meaning is not the objective. The objective is to determine if the law in the case they're considering is constitutional and/or if the application of the law in the case is constitutional. Considering the Constitution in their deliberations is in the Constitution.

What most people ignore or forget or never knew is that the Court has abdicated half of it's job, taking only cases with a constitutional question even though the Constitution requires that they function as the final court of appeal in any case. Our court system has taken the view that only constitutional violations warrant appeal but that was not the intention of the Founders.

Anyway, bottom line is that the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution.

Wrong.
I said, "Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do."

You said, "the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution."

And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution,
I said the role of all judiciary is to interpret law, which is what judging a case and applicable laws, against the Constitution means.

 

[Rigby5]

I was really impressed with your views and writing on the Constitution until I realized that you Bidened that post. From some of the built-in hyperlinks in the Bidened text, I assume you Bidened it from Wikipedia.

That is what the brackets and ellipsis are for, to indicate a quoted section from a larger piece.
Wasn't that obvious?
Did you want me to include the link as well?

 

[woodwork201]

That is what the brackets and ellipsis are for, to indicate a quoted section from a larger piece.
Wasn't that obvious?
Did you want me to include the link as well?

Show me in any English writing style guide where brackets and ellipses are shown as a way to indicate a quote. And even if they were, which they are not, there's still no credit given. You Bidened it.

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong.
I said, "Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do."

You said, "the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution."

And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution,
I said the role of all judiciary is to interpret law, which is what judging a case and applicable laws, against the Constitution means.

Your English is very bad today or, you're reverting to the inborn, inbred, nature of all leftists and lying - and I lean toward the latter.

Interpreting the law, including the Constitution, means interpreting the Constitution. How can you quote your own statement and claim you didn't say it. You clearly did say the Courts job is to interpret the Constitution. You said it outright and that's what you meant. Now you can't back it up and, in typical leftist fashion, you won't just admit you were wrong and move on so you deny that which you said says that which you said.

What you did not say is that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law against what the Constitution says or means. That is a lie.

Just as your plagiarism in another post is completely Biden-like, this denial and claiming you didn't say what you did say, and saying you did say that which you did not say, is just more Biden-like behavior. You Bidened this one, as well.

 

[Rigby5]

Show me in any English writing style guide where brackets and ellipses are shown as a way to indicate a quote. And even if they were, which they are not, there's still no credit given. You Bidened it.

Ellipsis always mean there is more, which implies it is part of a larger piece. There would be no reason to do that with one's own writing unless it was an obvious list that was getting redundant, similar to how one uses "etc.".
Anything setting off a section, whether parenthesis, brackets, braces, etc. always indicates something.
And it should be obvious from the article and section headings that this was from a larger government legal document.

But when you say, "You Bidened it", that means nothing to me.
I have never heard of Biden being known for plagiarization. But is that what you mean?

 

[Rigby5]

Your English is very bad today or, you're reverting to the inborn, inbred, nature of all leftists and lying - and I lean toward the latter.

Interpreting the law, including the Constitution, means interpreting the Constitution. How can you quote your own statement and claim you didn't say it. You clearly did say the Courts job is to interpret the Constitution. You said it outright and that's what you meant. Now you can't back it up and, in typical leftist fashion, you won't just admit you were wrong and move on so you deny that which you said says that which you said.

What you did not say is that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law against what the Constitution says or means. That is a lie.

Just as your plagiarism in another post is completely Biden-like, this denial and claiming you didn't say what you did say, and saying you did say that which you did not say, is just more Biden-like behavior. You Bidened this one, as well.

Ok, I accidentally left out the word "just".
Here is exactly what I wrote originally.

{...
I said, "Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do."

You said, "the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution."

And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution,
I said the role of all judiciary is to interpret law, which is what judging a case and applicable laws, against the Constitution means.
...}

You clearly implied that I said the job of the Supreme Court was to just interpret the Constitution.
And I did not.
I said that the job of all courts was to interpret all law.
I never limited it to just the SCOTUS, or to just the Constitution.

However, I also failed to mention the judiciary also evaluates testimony and fact as well as law.

 

[woodwork201]

Ellipsis always mean there is more, which implies it is part of a larger piece. There would be no reason to do that with one's own writing unless it was an obvious list that was getting redundant, similar to how one uses "etc.".
Anything setting off a section, whether parenthesis, brackets, braces, etc. always indicates something.
And it should be obvious from the article and section headings that this was from a larger government legal document.

But when you say, "You Bidened it", that means nothing to me.
I have never heard of Biden being known for plagiarization. But is that what you mean?

You can make up your own language any time you want. Communicating with others using your homemade language will be pretty difficult.

Biden's a serial plagiarizer. You did what Biden did. There's no reason to argue about it or defend it; just credit your source when you use someone else's work. It's actually a site rule.

 

[woodwork201]

Ok, I accidentally left out the word "just".
Here is exactly what I wrote originally.

{...
I said, "Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do."

You said, "the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution."

And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution,
I said the role of all judiciary is to interpret law, which is what judging a case and applicable laws, against the Constitution means.
...}

You clearly implied that I said the job of the Supreme Court was to just interpret the Constitution.
And I did not.
I said that the job of all courts was to interpret all law.
I never limited it to just the SCOTUS, or to just the Constitution.

However, I also failed to mention the judiciary also evaluates testimony and fact as well as law.

You're lying again. I'm disappointed. There was a time when I respected your opinion even when it differed from mine because you used reason. Now you're just lying. You explicitly and exactly stated that it is the job of the Courts to interpret the Constitution and now you deny those words even though what''s said on the Internet stays on the Internet. And it's on the Internet. You quote the words you said and say you didn't say what those words say.

You just have a serious problem with admitting you made a mistake. You Biden that, too. He denies the things he is on video recording saying. It must be something with the genetic defect that makes someone a leftist, that makes them want to take from those who produce to get handouts for themselves and others, that also makes them unable to admit when they are wrong. It likely has to do with the fact that honesty would make them admit the wrong in their social and political views and that would destroy all that they claim to be. It kind of shows that you know what you'd be without your facade.

 

[woodwork201]

Rigby5 said: Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.

Rigby5 said: And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution

 

[Rigby5]

You can make up your own language any time you want. Communicating with others using your homemade language will be pretty difficult.

Biden's a serial plagiarizer. You did what Biden did. There's no reason to argue about it or defend it; just credit your source when you use someone else's work. It's actually a site rule.

My POINT was asking what you think would be better for delineating a section of a larger quote?

I still think my quote was obvious since it had headings in it like "Article 3" and "Section 1".
Nor do I think I needed to add a link since it was law someone else already linked.

 

[Rigby5]

You're lying again. I'm disappointed. There was a time when I respected your opinion even when it differed from mine because you used reason. Now you're just lying. You explicitly and exactly stated that it is the job of the Courts to interpret the Constitution and now you deny those words even though what''s said on the Internet stays on the Internet. And it's on the Internet. You quote the words you said and say you didn't say what those words say.

You just have a serious problem with admitting you made a mistake. You Biden that, too. He denies the things he is on video recording saying. It must be something with the genetic defect that makes someone a leftist, that makes them want to take from those who produce to get handouts for themselves and others, that also makes them unable to admit when they are wrong. It likely has to do with the fact that honesty would make them admit the wrong in their social and political views and that would destroy all that they claim to be. It kind of shows that you know what you'd be without your facade.

You seem to not pick up on nuance?
If the ONLY job of the SCOTUS, to interpret the Constitution, and nothing else?

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby5 said: Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.

Rigby5 said: And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution

What I obviously mean was, "And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was JUST to interpret the Constitution."