Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

[cxt]

Jason

I see what your saying but no, a person can be "smart" but its far from automatic.
The guys running Enron were supposed to be "smart" too and look how that turned out.

It used be the Church that asserted that its members were smarter, better educated, and more clear thinking than the herd---so they clearly should be ones decideing how the peasents should live.......and at the time it may have argueably correct---at least in the better educated part.....but it was a bad idea overall---and its still a bad idea.

[Jason Rees]

I still think they got it right when they made two representative bodies, an executive, and a judicial body. Competing groups of idiots don't often work together to make a really BIG miss-step. So far, checks and balances have worked, with the few exceptions of government walking over the will of the people being so small that most people don't even comment on it anymore.

But then, alot of people ignore government, thinking that as long as they get their coffee in the morning, everything's gucci. Even complaining over gas prices doesn't get them off their duff under most circumstances. Sheep live in denial over more than just violence.

[IJ]

Ya know, for one to argue that the same sex marriage issue should be settled in the courts, one pretty much has to see it was a mistake for the SCOTUS to decide in Loving v Virginia that interracial couples were equal to same race couples. And that's just not an easy thing to do. I betcha that had same sex marriage not been on the radar, very very few people would still say, "oh, that was a mistake, and interracial couples should have remained second class until the whole country finally shifted and recognized their prejudice."

Instead, they would say, "yes, we all believe now that the freedom to marry someone of a different race, which now seems so unremarkable to us, was an unimagined consequence of a visionary set of documents which guaranteed us all equality and the pursuit of happiness, and that was one of the things that made the Framers' work so brilliant, that they created not a laundry list of a few rights but a tool for examining situations that is still expanding freedoms and leading the world to a more advanced state. Etc."

Beyond that, to say that the institution of marriage is a primarily religious union begs the question, gosh, what are all these atheists and wiccans and satanists (and jews and muslims and buddhists and so on) doing with their civil marriage licenses, and why is the state sanctifying a religious union? The answer is that while many people are sensitive about it, the state has to either decide this issue entirely apart from religious mores because of the separation of church and state, OR, preferrably, get out of the marriage business altogether. My solution, mentioned several times before, which forces no religion to confront a "marriage" which offends them and frees the state of any connection to marriage, is:

1) Let churches decide whom to marry. Hands off, except I'd mandate this be limited as in #2. Don't want cult leaders marrying six of their daughters etc.

2) Grant civil union licenses without regard to fertility, childbearing plans, religion, age, sex, and so on--to consenting adults. This leaves out your neighbors kid, dog, potted plant, and sister/daughter, because family relationships introduce an element of coercion. There's always a power differential there.

3) Optional but probably wise: do the conservative thing and make CU's a real committment. Bob and Steve aren't killing straight marriage; easy divorce may be.

"I never said the "courts are ruleing the country" I simple believe unelected and unaccountable judges should not be essentially legislating from the bench---they are and its IMO a bad thing."

Of course it's bad. We all agree on that. However, we disagree on whether acknowledging that prejudicial laws violate the spirit of the Constitution or not. I say they do. I say a SCOTUS that believes separate but equal is inherently unequal is doing the right thing and calling for everyone to wait until the legislature stops pandering for reelection and rights legislative wrongs is a mistake. Abortion was quite a reach. I will say that I believe very strongly that a woman's control over her medical care should not be altered by pregnancy. I also think that heavy emphasis on contraception and abortion alternatives with the right to safe abortion as a backup is probably good policy, but I'm not sure abortion = privacy = found in the Constitution.

"I could just as easily ask you why you so disturst your fellow citizens instead of a political appointee like a judge?"

I distrust everyone, kay? Beyond that, group think has its problems. And there is a reason the world's oldest democracy has a select group of learned peeps who are ostensibly free from the tides of politics and elections and fads. I don't want them reduced to simply reading the stingiest, sparest, most literal interpretations of laws written by the legislature. That's not really interpreting at all. I think the branch gets viewed as inherently evil and unfairly treated as if it weren't meant to be equal to the other two.

[cxt]

IJ

Neither do I--except that assumeing they are "free from the tides of politics and ...and fads." is less than whole picture.

If they were truly free from such then your point would resonate much more strongly.....but they are politcial appointees chosen not because they are "free" of political viewpoints but rather because they represent them.

Its why there is always such a furor when a slot opens up or a president might be in position to appoint one.

We have a balance of power between the branchs--I want a balance and the courts during my lifetime have seen fit to behave as if they, not the peoples direct representaives makes the laws in the US.

I have little problem with the "stingiest, sparest...interpretation" of the Consitution, IMO the document that enshrines my rights, shouldn't be open to easy interpretation, whose basic meaning changes with the whims of whomever is the tie-breaker on the courts.

The Church used to tell us that as the most educated, the best equipped and most clear thinking people---the ones looking for all of us--that "they" should be the ones that made the laws and told the rest of us how to live......and no doubt that at least some of the had the best of all possible motives--some of them anyway--but it was a bad idea for humanity...IMO.

The "new Chuch" seems to be the Courts---and that makes me uneasy.

I don't have a solution---which does not help my mood either.

[IJ]

"If they were truly free from such then your point would resonate much more strongly.....but they are politcial appointees chosen not because they are "free" of political viewpoints but rather because they represent them."

Our system isn't perfect. It's merely the best. Of course there are reasons people are picked. But then, the legislative gets a say, and there is a long history of appointees who don't behave the way their selectors would ahve hoped (although, some, like Thomas.... Jackpot!!)*. Once appointed, there they sit.

"I have little problem with the "stingiest, sparest...interpretation" of the Consitution, IMO the document that enshrines my rights, shouldn't be open to easy interpretation, whose basic meaning changes with the whims of whomever is the tie-breaker on the courts."

Maybe that's because you haven't felt your rights in question under the boot of a legislature? Ask a black person whether they think their freedom and equality was inherent in the visionary documents that founded the country. Ask women if they wanted to wait for legislatures for the vote or whether it might have been ok if the SCOTUS found no reason for the phrase "all men are created equal" to be taken in the literal sense rather than read for the spirit of the words. And *I* can tell you I was certainly ticked off to find that the exact same intimate acts performed by a straight person and not by a gay person were permitted by the whim of the legislature. In this case, the SCOTUS didn't ask the legislature to define what they meant by the reference to a well-regulated militia. They found your nifty right to bear arms!

"Before the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller on June 26, 2008, there was much disagreement as to whether it protected a collective right or an individual right, because the amendment begins with a prefatory clause that refers to a "well regulated militia."[5] Previously, the Supreme Court did not address the amendment directly, or did so in limited or ambiguous terms." --Wiki (see the rest for the historical context and why this is not a cut and dry issue)**

Isn't that swell? The SCOTUS settled a much debated issue with their pens. This was probably "legislating" from the bench," in the minds of the Brady Bill set.

"The Church used to tell us that as the most educated, the best equipped and most clear thinking people---the ones looking for all of us--that "they" should be the ones that made the laws and told the rest of us how to live......and no doubt that at least some of the had the best of all possible motives--some of them anyway--but it was a bad idea for humanity...IMO. The "new Chuch" seems to be the Courts---and that makes me uneasy."

Methinks you've picked the wrong target. I would find no solace in a legislature telling me I'm not allowed to privacy with the person I fell in love with, as opposed to a court. THEY are also often of the opinion that they can stand in judgement over the lives of others. And while they may be elected, they may be elected by morons, in particular morons infatuated with the prejudice of the hour, which really does the minority little good. Remember all the times various people have written on this forum, "Democracy is 10 wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner"?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution

[Jason Rees]

Ya know, for one to argue that the same sex marriage issue should be settled in the courts, one pretty much has to see it was a mistake for the SCOTUS to decide in Loving v Virginia that interracial couples were equal to same race couples.

No, you really don't, but I know this is a topic very close to your heart, IJ, so I'll just quietly .

The answer is that while many people are sensitive about it, the state has to either decide this issue entirely apart from religious mores because of the separation of church and state, OR, preferrably, get out of the marriage business altogether.

Neither religion, nor government, can be seperated from marriage. Something will always rear its ugly head. Just think of all the sticky interractions between muslim practices and U.S. law. Both marriage and religion are cultural issues, and the law will always tangle with culture. It has to. This particular issue would preferrably be handled by the state, but when the state overrides the lawfully applied will of the people (which happened in California recently), it will work its way to the federal level. Inevitably, I'm sure, we'll see the issue decided by the Supreme Court. Then the howling will begin, and the healing.

[cxt]

IJ

"thats because you haven't felt your rights in question under the boots of the legislature."

I don't know IJ, you seem to saying that we should get rid of all that messy and imperfect "democracy" and go stright to rule by fiat from the bench.

As you say the system isn't perfect.

I'll also point out that judges essentially legislating from the bench is potentially a vastly more serious problem than your personal ultimate happiness...or my personal ultimate happiness for that matter.
A situation Rich Lowery highlighted in his New York Post article of 7/3/08 where he stated:

"......while Kennedy expects the nation to bend to his moral whimsy. With apologies to Louis XIV, Kennedy might as well declare la consitution, c'est moi!"

When people only look at "what is good for me and damn the consequences---that is how we get an Enron--where a few people got what they wanted and 10's of 1000's of people lost their life savings.

Besides, a stict reading of the Consitution isn't really gender based---there is nothing in the document itself that prevents gays getting married...a strict reading and a strict interpretation would probably be the best for your cause.

A strict reading would also have rendered moot any specific amendment granting women the right to vote---it would not have been needed---an act BTW not of the courts but of the dreaded "legislature."

Blacks are a special case--because of the demands of a weak and fragile nation and despite the strong feelings of many of the Framers slavary lasted longer than it should have---but its ending was not due to the Courts--and again the dreaded "legislature" had just as much to do with various civil rights advancements as the Courts.

A strict reading and interpretation of the Consituion is almost entirely gender and race neutral.

(man and mankind etc is period short hand for "humankind")

"may be elected by morons"

Or appointed by "morons"---or as you pointed out--they may decide to vote anyway they please--regardless of the implicit understanding that got them the job in the first place...ie their political opinions.

"which does the minority little good"

Really?.........for a nation that is what 70-80%? christian/belive in "god" etc... the "minority" has certainly removed any mention of god from the schools.
The minority of any sort wield often tremendous power here in the USA---as you say, its not "perfect"..but its better than anyplace else.

Isn't that the exact point with with all the pressure on the courts to legalize gay marriage?
You can't convience the majority to vote for it...yet.. so your going to force it on one everyone thu the courts?
Which group here is the "wolves" in your example IJ--and which group is the "sheep?"

"Infatuated with the prejudice of of the hour"

Which is, IMO, no worse than 1 person in a black robe, being "infatuated" with their own cleverness and deciding that simply being a guardian of the Consitution is not enough for them --that they must "leave their mark" ..buying into whatever fad "of the hour" they personally find favor with.

To again quote Lowey:

"Kennedy fashions himself as an instructor to the nation......And he is--in the arbitary ways of judical lawlessness."

And BTW, you have no idea if I "haven't felt "my" rights in question" or not....we talk on-line, you don't know me.

[Rising Star]

I know that you folks have bantered back and forth about 'historical narrative' while I have been out of commission, but imho I believe that Court used this phrase since they couldn't look to 'legislative intent'.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison wrote a proposal to the House of Representatives about the Bill of Rights. His phrase in that document as pertaining to the 2nd Amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulus of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In the same document, he also proposed "That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration - That all the power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people."

So we were not 'given' rights by the framers but rather these rights were merely re-affirmed.

Off to breakfast and then to DC - more to follow.

John