The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[berg80]

haha the court in no way said that a state can’t ban guns in a state house

Uh oh. Sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with a dolt, but I should have given my experience with you. I didn't say a state couldn't ban open carry in a statehouse. I said it's ludicrous that the court's interpretation of the 2nd A allows it. Got it?

 

[berg80]

Not to disagree because I understand what you're saying, but imo its more about reading the const to reach a desired outcome. Of that, neither Thomas (who is not consistent in his approach) or the supposed "textualists" are any different from the Court of the 1970s.

And people are not stupid. Despite Thomas's snark that Americans are more familiar with their Iphones than their constitution, most Americans understand clearly what these 5 are up to.

If more people were familiar with the Constitution Thomas's reputation would be even more tarnished than it is now.

 

[surada]

Why are all you racists only going after the lone black guy that voted to end fed abortion support. Why not the five other white people too? You racists always show your colors.

Haven't you ever heard of the Hyde Amendment?

 

[dblack]

Which state is considering outlawing interracial marriage?

Why does it matter? People who can't understand hypotheticals are tedious indeed.

 

[berg80]

no….because Loving was decided under the equal protection clause not the theory of sub due process

That doesn't matter using Alito's illogic because according to him history and tradition are the exclusive source of our constitutional rights. None exists for allowing interracial marriage.

 

[struth]

Uh oh. Sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with a dolt, but I should have given my experience with you. I didn't say a state couldn't ban open carry in a statehouse. I said it's ludicrous that the court's interpretation of the 2nd A allows it. Got it?

why? it’s not the courts job to ban guns in state houses…the state legislature job is to do that…and it would be perfectly legal to do that

 

[struth]

That doesn't matter using Alito's illogic because according to him history and tradition are the exclusive source of our constitutional rights. None exists for allowing interracial marriage.

of course it matters…it’s a totally different process to analyze the law.

RBG even said Roe was decided wrong because it wasn’t decided under the equal protection clause

 

[bendog]

why? it’s not the courts job to ban guns in state houses…the state legislature job is to do that…and it would be perfectly legal to do that

I think it would be legal/const, but not all on this board would agree. Yet most of them would find the state's power to outlaw abortion is unlimited.

 

[bendog]

of course it matters…it’s a totally different process to analyze the law.

RBG even said Roe was decided wrong because it wasn’t decided under the equal protection clause

yet alito just tried to forestall that in his opinion by saying it does NOT apply. Which is simply reasoning to reach a foregone conclusion.

 

[berg80]

why? it’s not the courts job to ban guns in state houses

The court's job, according to Alito in the Roe case, is to only allow rights that are explicitly granted by history and tradition. So unless you are arguing the Founders foresaw the existence of semi-automatic weapons their rulings regarding such are made from whole cloth.

 

[berg80]

yet alito just tried to forestall that in his opinion by saying it does NOT apply. Which is simply reasoning to reach a foregone conclusion.

The extent to which Alito goes out of his way to calm the fears of people who understand the Pandora's box the court has opened tells you just how far the court went to find a rationale to justify their opinion. Because it tears down the legal foundation for so many other rulings.

ZIEGLER: Well, I think it's better to think of this as a sort of interconnected web of decisions about privacy in the sense of self-determination and autonomy, and often it's an idea of autonomy that's closely connected to norms of equality. So after Roe, for example, we see decisions about same-sex intimacy, so laws that had once criminalized sodomy being struck down, certainly marriage between people of the same sex. There are older decisions that Roe draws on that are closely tied to it, like decisions involving birth control, interracial marriage, with whom you can live, so your right to live with blood family, even in scenarios where zoning ordinances may make that difficult.

All of those decisions touch on these ideas about the most personal, intimate and consequential life decisions and insulating people from state interference with those decisions. So if the Supreme Court is essentially saying the abortion right doesn't make sense because of how people would have thought at the time the 14th Amendment was written, we can reasonably ask whether the same logic could apply to the other rights in this interconnected web.

 

[berg80]

of course it matters…it’s a totally different process to analyze the law.

RBG even said Roe was decided wrong because it wasn’t decided under the equal protection clause

You keep getting that wrong. She said it would have been more easily defensible had it been decided that way. But she absolutely maintained the right to an abortion existed.

 

[berg80]

Ironically, after the court's conservatives say about Roe that the public's opinion doesn't matter, the majority of Americans having wanted to see Roe untouched, defenders of their ruling pretend public opinion will keep the court's hands off things like same sex marriage. This despite the court introducing a pretext for it and other rights to be dismantled.

 

[struth]

I think it would be legal/const, but not all on this board would agree. Yet most of them would find the state's power to outlaw abortion is unlimited.

well because gun ownership is a Constitutional Right....it's in the Second Amendment....an abortion is not a constitutional right.

 

[miketx]

Why does it matter? People who can't understand hypotheticals are tedious indeed.

So you're lying.

 

[struth]

You keep getting that wrong. She said it would have been more easily defensible had it been decided that way. But she absolutely maintained the right to an abortion existed.

Not sure what I am getting wrong....I never suggested she didn't say there was a right to an abortion....she did however say that Roe was illogically decided and should have been decided under Equal Protection grounds....I don't disagreee

 

[struth]

The court's job, according to Alito in the Roe case, is to only allow rights that are explicitly granted by history and tradition. So unless you are arguing the Founders foresaw the existence of semi-automatic weapons their rulings regarding such are made from whole cloth.

No, that's not true. What Alito did however, was apply the Sub Due Process test, becuase that's how Roe was decided....and when you apply that test you do look to history and traditions.

We don't have to use the Sub Due Process test for firearms, since the right to bear arms is plainly stated in the Second Amendment

 

[dblack]

So you're lying.

So you're maturbating. While you type. Gross.

 

[miketx]

So you're maturbating. While you type. Gross.

Learn to spell loser.

 

[dblack]

Learn to spell loser.

Learn to think, dipshit.