District of Coumbia v. Heller

The New York Times begins their news story on this case in typical Times fashion: an editorial masquerading as a news story. Here is the first paragraph:

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country’s history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19scotus.html?_r=1&sq=gun&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=2&pagewanted=all

This comes as a great shock to many of us who have always believed that the Second Amendment has always been about individual rights. After all it is the second of ten amendments enumerating individual rights. What else would it be about?

The Charleston Gazette gives us their take on it: http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200803160360 After years of pushing gun control laws, the Gazette avers:

The problem with gun control laws is that they don't control guns.

That certainly is one of the problems. Maybe they can finally give that "Bearing Arms in WV" crap a rest...

There are as many news stories and editorials as there are people to read them. What you will not see is that the spurious argument that the 2nd Amendment is predicated on the existence of a militia has been brainstormed and law symposiumed by a liberal foundation meant to counter the influence of the NRA. It is called the Joyce Foundation
http://www.joycefdn.org/Default.aspx and it seems innocuous enough. It was funded to promote the beauty of the Great Lakes area and morphed into a “gun violence” group. Isn’t it odd how your Last Will and Testament can be bastardized by your well-meaning and misguided progeny?

If the Court upholds the District’s right to control arms you will hear much more from this group and the weak argument that the 2nd Amendment is contingent upon a militia. It appears from offhand comments by many of the Justices that they are predisposed to rule that the 2nd Amendment is aobut individual rights. Incidentally, the Bush Administration sent an embarrassed Solicitor General down there to argue in concurrence with the District. Will anybody be sad to see Bush retire to Texas?

OC,

Maybe his mom. Probably his neighbors in Crawford......

I find the Washington DC gun ban just brimming with irony. How has the District fared in violent crimes since passing the ban?

My frustration is great with well meaning but very misguided (if I may steal an excellent description) religious leaders in Chicago who think the answer to our horrific school gun violence problem is in more gun control (in Chicago, most no one has the right to carry a gun, let alone the murderers who are actually guilty of the crimes). It seriously never occurs to thepeople on the radio that maybe the fault for a murder lies in the heart and mind of the murderer, rather than in the method he used (perhaps we can ban Louisville Sluggers too, which have been used in murders in Chicagoland, along with knives and bricks). Emotions become the source for their positions on gun control as opposed to any kind of reason or data.

ohio county wrote:The Charleston Gazette gives us their take on it: http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200803160360 After years of pushing gun control laws, the Gazette avers:

The problem with gun control laws is that they don't control guns.

That certainly is one of the problems. Maybe they can finally give that "Bearing Arms in WV" crap a rest...

Don't bet on that, Ohio.

That Editorial had to have been written by James A. Haught. And it is laced with his hate and negativitisms for gun ownership. To wit:

Licensed pistols in the hands of sober, intelligent, responsible adults aren't the worst problem. Neither are rifles and shotguns used by hunters. Instead, the real menace is millions of illicit pistols, and some assault weapons, currently possessed by unlicensed Americans . They're the chief cause of America's horrifying gun murder rate - a toll hundreds of times higher than in nations with genuine gun control.

No matter how the Supreme Court rules, we hope U.S. leaders finally try to protect Americans from the pistol carnage. Maybe the solution will entail development of scanners enabling police to see hidden weapons among street crowds. Perhaps that would weed out the unlicensed guns that laws cannot stop.

HA, the only way U.S. leaders can finally try to protect Americans from the pistol carnage is to permit their right to carry a pistol to protect themselves from said carnage because it is a fact that the Police and Courts are both incapable and unwilling to protect them.

Ohio, did you note that Haught failed to say one thing about prosecution of the perpetrators of said pistol carnage.

That Haught failed to say one damn thing about the Courts turning the pistol carnage criminals back loose on the streets to continue their carnage.

The Gazette constantly calls for and demands tougher, meaner, severer DUI Laws against the perpetrators to prevent vehicular carnage ...... but they won't do the same for the perpetrators of said pistol carnage.

That is hypocrisy in the worst sense and therefore I have to assume it is based solely on “potential loss of revenue”.

ohio county wrote:Incidentally, the Bush Administration sent an embarrassed Solicitor General down there to argue in concurrence with the District. Will anybody be sad to see Bush retire to Texas?

I will unless he takes James A. Haught with him …… and leaves Dick Chaney behind supporting gun rights.

.

ps, the wife of this 81 year old man is the kind of person that James Haught does not want owning a gun.

Man, 81, won't be charged in intruder's shooting

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Published on: 03/20/08

Eighty-one-year-old Robert Jenkins said he loaded his wife's handgun and tried to scare off a burglar in his Tucker home, but he fired when the intruder rushed him, according to a family friend.

DeKalb County police said the shooting was justified, and Jenkins will not be charged in the death of the man, who was possibly in his 20s and had not been identified Wednesday.

"He defended his home, defended his wife," police spokesman J.T. Ware said. "He did what everybody would hope to do in a situation like that."

Jenkins was being treated at a hospital Wednesday for a minor gunshot wound. His 78-year-old wife was unharmed.

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/03/20/invadershot0320.html

If the honest and decent citizens are permitted to own pistols .......... then it becomes really, really dangerous for any criminal wanting to do what they like to do best ........ and there are lots of people who don't want to see them getting hurt or dead doing it.

They aparently prefer that the criminal's victim be hurt or be dead.



.

ohio county wrote:
This comes as a great shock to many of us who have always believed that the Second Amendment has always been about individual rights. After all it is the second of ten amendments enumerating individual rights. What else would it be about?

The Supreme Court ruled in the US v. Cruikshankthe 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated to the states and that the 2nd Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

Aaron,

I find great irony in that, as the 1st amendment speaks of "Congress" being prohibited from passing certain laws and the 2nd of rights of the people not being "infringed."

I would think the plain language would have the 2nd amendment being a guaranteed right, as opposed to the 1st amendment, involving rights that were protected against federal intrusion but not of the states.

Mike,

Honestly I don't know why the court decided the way they did unless they believed that if they ruled on the merits of the 2nd Amendment, it does not guarantee an individual the right to bear arms with the exception of state militia purposes, which can easily be interpreted, thus they would have been forced to deny individuals the right to bear arms. In fact, the argument for individual rights is backed by many founding father quotes and intentions. The problem with those quotes and intentions is that they are not a part of either the constitution or the bill of rights.

The case before the court now is the first time in 207 years that a court will directly address states vs individual rights in regards to the 2nd Amendment despite numerous challenges. I think that's fairly telling in what previous courts have thought of the 2nd Amendment.

It is my learned opinion that anyone that argues that “the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to own and/or bear arms”, specifically “a pistol”, is crazier than a loon and only does so because of their personal beliefs.

And my learned opinion is derived from the following two (2) historical references, to wit:

This 1st reference is a brief “timeline” of the introduction, debate, passage and ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

On July 21, however, Madison raised the issue of his Bill ……………. and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. ………… on July 28, the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment. [33] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20 ……… on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. [38] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate

On December 15, 1791, the Virginia legislature ratified the Bill of Rights, rounding out the requisite three-fourths of the states needed to make the Amendments part of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Thus, the Congress had from June 8, 1789 to September 21, 1789 to include specific wording into the 2nd Amendment to prohibit or disallow an “individual the right to own and/or bear arms”, but they didn’t. And they didn’t because it was an implied “right” that they themselves believed in and agreed with. And proof of said implied “right” is implied in the second historical references, to wit:

The History of Dueling in America

The fatal duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr shocked the nation. But it was the identity of the man killed, not the fact of the duel itself, that produced such dismay. By 1804, dueling had become an American fixture. And for another thirty years or more, its popularity would continue to grow.

Like many early American customs, dueling was imported. Starting in the Middle Ages, European nobles had defended their honor in man-to-man battles. An early version of dueling was known as "judicial combat," so called because God allegedly judged the man in the right and let him win. In an era known for its bloody encounters, judicial combats probably prevented men from killing in the heat of passion. Still, numerous authorities, including heads of state and the Catholic Church, banned dueling -- with little effect.

In 1777, a group of Irishmen codified dueling practices in a document called the Code Duello. The Code contained 26 specific rules outlining all aspects of the duel, from the time of day during which challenges could be received to the number of shots or wounds required for satisfaction of honor. An Americanized version of the Code, written by South Carolina Governor John Lyde Wilson, appeared in 1838. Prior to that, Americans made do with European rules.

Most duelists chose guns as their weapons. The large caliber, smoothbore flintlock pistols Hamilton and Burr used in their encounter typified the American dueling weapons. Many American men owned a pair of such pistols, and, from about 1750 to 1850, many were called to use them.

The chance of dying in a pistol duel was relatively slim. Flintlocks often misfired. And even …………….

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/dueling.html

If the Members of the 1789 Congress had intended to limit or deprive the individual the right to own and/or bear arms …….. then they surely would have addressed the subject of “dueling”, which they didn’t. And dueling was a common and accepted “practice” up until the time of the Civil War when it declined because of public opinion against it.

cheers

When the constitution went to Committee, this was the first sentance of article one section 8 read.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The committee memebers (I can find their names later, I don't have time now) got all worried about introducing a document that gave the federal government the authority to raise taxes (it was something the masses were leary of at the time) so while they were in committee, they decided to give their reasons for raising taxes thus the above enumerated responsibility became...

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Those 5 words, taken out of context, is what allows Congress to waste TRILLIONS on unconstitutional spending.

You're argument is FUBAR Sammy, it's all about what's actually in the constitution.

As for your learned opionion, it's wrong.

Cheers.

Aaron wrote:When the constitution went to Committee, this was the first sentance of article one section 8 read.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The committee memebers (I can find their names later, I don't have time now) got all worried about introducing a document that gave the federal government the authority to raise taxes (it was something the masses were leary of at the time) so while they were in committee, they decided to give their reasons for raising taxes thus the above enumerated responsibility became...

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Those 5 words, taken out of context, is what allows Congress to waste TRILLIONS on unconstitutional spending.

You're argument is FUBAR Sammy, it's all about what's actually in the constitution.

As for your learned opionion, it's wrong.

Cheers.

Aaron, just what does Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution have to do with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

And Aaron, did you miss this part of what I posted, to wit:

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

“A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

If they had left that in there it would have read:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defence shall not be infringed.

And thus the “loonies” would have a leg to stand on because “for the common defence” implies only for a “regulated militia”.

Here below Aaron are all the Revisions to the 2nd Amendment, ...... but only the one Passed by both the House and Senate has any basis in Law.
=========================================

Evolution of the 2nd Amendment

June 8, 1789 - brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

July 21 - the Bill of Rights entered committee for review.

August 17 - this version was read into the House Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24 - the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25 – this version was entered it into the Senate Journal.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4 - the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

September 9 - A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

September 21 - House voted to accept the changes made by the Senate, but entered it into the House journal as:

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 Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ 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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ 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.

.

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:When the constitution went to Committee, this was the first sentance of article one section 8 read.

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The committee memebers (I can find their names later, I don't have time now) got all worried about introducing a document that gave the federal government the authority to raise taxes (it was something the masses were leary of at the time) so while they were in committee, they decided to give their reasons for raising taxes thus the above enumerated responsibility became...

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Those 5 words, taken out of context, is what allows Congress to waste TRILLIONS on unconstitutional spending.

You're argument is FUBAR Sammy, it's all about what's actually in the constitution.

As for your learned opionion, it's wrong.

Cheers.

Aaron, just what does Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution have to do with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

Courts don't use what some of the founding fathers thought or how a bill read BEFORE the final version. They look at the actual text of the law and the constitution. That's all they can go on Sam. That is the point of my example.

SamCogar wrote:And Aaron, did you miss this part of what I posted, to wit:

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

“A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

If they had left that in there it would have read:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defence shall not be infringed.

And thus the “loonies” would have a leg to stand on because “for the common defence” implies only for a “regulated militia”.

Actually, the reason for the 2nd Amendment was because our founding fathers were scared witless of a standing army and that was the reasoning for allowing citizens the right to retain arms, to defend against that.

But that's moot as well. Our founding fathers could have very easily wrote all controversy out of the Amendment. They didn't. 100 or so sessions of Congress could have very easily addressed the 2nd Amendment, going so far as to change it with another constitutional Amendment. They haven't. So the controversies there and anyone that uses any loogic and reasoning to read what the 2nd Amendment actually says cannot come to any other conclusion then what us loonies say. The right to bear arms is 'to maintain a well regulated militia' and nothing else. There is no other reason given anywhere in the constitution. That is fact.

SamCogar wrote:Here below Aaron are all the Revisions to the 2nd Amendment, ...... but only the one Passed by both the House and Senate has any basis in Law.
=========================================

Evolution of the 2nd Amendment

June 8, 1789 - brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

July 21 - the Bill of Rights entered committee for review.

August 17 - this version was read into the House Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24 - the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25 – this version was entered it into the Senate Journal.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4 - the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

September 9 - A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

September 21 - House voted to accept the changes made by the Senate, but entered it into the House journal as:

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 Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ 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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ 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.

.

That's all well and good Sam but it's not in the constitution, is it!!

You know Sam, the solution is very simple. Congress could propose and submit to the states for ratification a Constitutional Amendment that takes out the part about maintaining a well regulated militia and make the right to bear arms an individual right with zero controversy. That would end any argument, don't you agree!!!

Aaron wrote: That's all well and good Sam but it's not in the constitution, is it!!

No, and it is not in the "Lord's Prayer", either.

Aaron wrote:You know Sam, the solution is very simple. Congress could propose and submit to the states for ratification a Constitutional Amendment that takes out the part about maintaining a well regulated militia and make the right to bear arms an individual right with zero controversy. That would end any argument, don't you agree!!!

You are kidding of course.



.

Why am I kidding? You don't think it would pass? Not even if the took it directly to the people as the founding fathers did the constitution?

At any rate, it's the only way that the right to bear arms can be an individual right with no ties to a 'well regulated militia'.

Using logic and reason, there is no gray area with the 2nd Amendment. It says what it says.

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote: That's all well and good Sam but it's not in the constitution, is it!!

No, and it is not in the "Lord's Prayer", either.
.

So what? The Courts are appointed to settle questions of the law and the Constitution- not questions of the "Lords Prayer".

Aaron wrote:You know Sam, the solution is very simple. Congress could propose and submit to the states for ratification a Constitutional Amendment that takes out the part about maintaining a well regulated militia and make the right to bear arms an individual right with zero controversy. That would end any argument, don't you agree!!!

Congress could submit to the states for ratification, and it might or might not be be ratified. Either way, it it would not be with "zero controversy", and it wouldn't "end any argument".

Aaron wrote:Courts don't use what some of the founding fathers thought or how a bill read BEFORE the final version. They look at the actual text of the law and the constitution. That's all they can go on Sam. That is the point of my example.

Exactly. What's most important is what made it into the Constitution, not what was left out.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Courts don't use what some of the founding fathers thought or how a bill read BEFORE the final version. They look at the actual text of the law and the constitution. That's all they can go on Sam. That is the point of my example.

Exactly. What's most important is what made it into the Constitution, not what was left out.

Not what's "MOST" important. It's the only thing that matters and it is at that point that the court must make decisions based on what it says in the constution.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.": Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President - Source: November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote: That's all well and good Sam but it's not in the constitution, is it!!

No, and it is not in the "Lord's Prayer", either.
.

So what? The Courts are appointed to settle questions of the law and the Constitution- not questions of the "Lords Prayer".

And the difference between settling questions of the Lords Prayer and the settling of questions of THIS, ....... is exactly what according to your personal legal opinion?

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Courts don't use what some of the founding fathers thought or how a bill read BEFORE the final version. They look at the actual text of the law and the constitution. That's all they can go on Sam. That is the point of my example.

Exactly. What's most important is what made it into the Constitution, not what was left out.

Now Ziggy, why in the world would you make such a statement in that you yourself are one of the most prolific posters of comments, quotes and references to documents authored by many of our founding Fathers and/or framers of our Constitution?

I assume you must have some intent or reason for doing said other than just demostrating your "copying n' pasting" skills.

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Courts don't use what some of the founding fathers thought or how a bill read BEFORE the final version. They look at the actual text of the law and the constitution. That's all they can go on Sam. That is the point of my example.

Exactly. What's most important is what made it into the Constitution, not what was left out.

So, that is what you two Court House "bench warmers" think, ..... huh?

Well, whatever turns your crank I guess.

This is another person's opinion, to wit:

Determining the "legislative intent" of a law is one of the major tools of settling case law. In order to adjudicate the Law, a Court must know what the People -- via their elected legislators -- have intended that Law to be.

And it is substantiated by the following, to wit:

Legislative intent

In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue.

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

Judicial Interpretation -The originalist approach

The originalist approach aspires to interpret constitutional text in light of original intentions or understandings of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. Advocates of originalism, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, are centrally concerned with discovering the subjective intentions of the figures who wrote or framed particular constitutional provisions. They tend to focus on the original public meaning or understanding of a constitutional provision for the generation that ratified or amended that provision. Originalism, of course, has its own liabilities, including determining what counts as evidence of intent, whose intent counts, and whether the promulgated intent should be abstract or concrete.

Have a good day.

.

ziggy wrote:"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.": Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President - Source: November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

Jefferson is the author of thousands of qoutes. They look good in books and on forums. Knowledge of them and $7.25 will get you a small coffee at Starbucks.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Courts don't use what some of the founding fathers thought or how a bill read BEFORE the final version. They look at the actual text of the law and the constitution. That's all they can go on Sam. That is the point of my example.

Exactly. What's most important is what made it into the Constitution, not what was left out.

So, that is what you two Court House "bench warmers" think, ..... huh?

Well, whatever turns your crank I guess.

This is another person's opinion, to wit:

Determining the "legislative intent" of a law is one of the major tools of settling case law. In order to adjudicate the Law, a Court must know what the People -- via their elected legislators -- have intended that Law to be.

And it is substantiated by the following, to wit:

Legislative intent

In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue.

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts have said, repeatedly, that the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

Judicial Interpretation -The originalist approach

The originalist approach aspires to interpret constitutional text in light of original intentions or understandings of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. Advocates of originalism, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, are centrally concerned with discovering the subjective intentions of the figures who wrote or framed particular constitutional provisions. They tend to focus on the original public meaning or understanding of a constitutional provision for the generation that ratified or amended that provision. Originalism, of course, has its own liabilities, including determining what counts as evidence of intent, whose intent counts, and whether the promulgated intent should be abstract or concrete.

Have a good day.

.

So you're an originalist Sam?

Aaron wrote:
So you're an originalist Sam?

In my own right, ........ and so is Justice Antonin Scalia in his right on the Supreme Court.

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:
So you're an originalist Sam?

In my own right, ........ and so is Justice Antonin Scalia in his right on the Supreme Court.

Somewhat.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most adherents, such as Justices Scalia and Thomas, are associated.

Reasonable poeple of that time wanted citizens to retain the right to bear arms as a counter measure to a standing army which they greatly feared at that time. That was a major contention among citizens during debates surrounding the constitutional convention as well as those surrounding the bill of rights.