View Single Post
Old March 25, 2013, 12:25 PM   #32
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomer58cal
It is the people's job to judge whether the courts are ruling justly. That's the reason for the second amendment. To protect ourselves from a corrupt government. The second amendment is the teeth of our right. The second amendment is absolute. That is it's point. "Infringed." It's not just our right but our duty to protest unjust rulings.
Toward what end? I do not ask that flippantly, but wonder what advance you see being made (other than being put on some kind of watch list) by "protesting" the NFA for instance?

Stepping away from utility and examining the theory of government, if "the people" are at liberty to "overrule" a court, is there any real judicial authority?

If "the people" are free to overrule judicial authority, is Congress free to overrule the decision in Heller?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatioo
The Supreme Court lies about what the constitution says. Look at the commerce clause, take out interstate, and the supreme court would read it the exact same way.
I dislike use of the word "lie". It suggests a motive and a malevolence that are relatively uncommon, and puts an end to any sort of civil and constructive interaction.

A great way to undermine a viable analysis is to overstate it. Your statements above overreaches in two specific ways. First, you use the word "lie"to describe an activity that is other than a clear deception involving a simple misstatement. Commerce clause jurisprudence is not the same as "You look great. Have you been working out?" Or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". Second, while it is likely that you and I do not concur with the current state of commerce clause jurisprudence, in fact, the Supreme Court does not get there by ignoring the interstate component.

The problem with the current state of commerce clause jurisprudence came with the decision in Wickard, and the development of a doctrine by which the Supreme Court would refuse to strike laws that did not regulate interstate commerce only, but extended to matters that could arguably influence interstate commerce remotely. That kind of interpretation is that it has the effect (as opposed to the rationale) of changing the meaning of the words "interstate commerce" to "interstate commerce and not interstate commerce".

That is not a lie in any simple sense, but it does change the effective meaning of the words in the Constitution. The problem there is that once one usurps the authority to change the meaning of the words used in laws, he destroys their character as laws..

Arguably that kind of reinterpretation is more damaging than a single, simple and discreet "lie".

Last edited by zukiphile; March 25, 2013 at 12:32 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04618 seconds with 7 queries