12-year-old held for death threats
26–28 out of 28 messages
| Author |
Message |
|
| orthicon |
Posted - 2/12/2013 5:56:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
yes, california might TALK about doing that..but..
they'll never actually put it on the ballot..
because they know it'll lose..
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 2/13/2013 11:06:30 AM | show profile | flag this post
"Laws (legislatures and courts)
limit, expand, and redefine the Constitution all the time"
In fact, they do NOT. The Constitution is sacrosanct. It cannot be justifiably changed except by amendment. And there is a difficult and time consuming process involved with that along with a requirement for a two-thirds majority agreement of the legislature and three-quarters ratification by the states. This was deliberate on the part of the founders so the Constitution could not be changed on a whim.
There are, however, vast areas in which the Consitution is silent. These are the areas...and the ONLY areas...in which the legislature can justifiably act.
The role of the courts is not to CHANGE the Constitution but to interpret its meanings and assure that subsequent legislation and regulation does not alter or countermand its provisions or intent.
But intent is an area on which activists have left their unwarranted imprint, e.g., Roe v. Wade finding a "right of privacy" in the 9th and 14th Amendments. NO "right of privacy" exists in the Constitution's words so the Roe finding is erroneous.
The legislature could have...and should have...enacted legislation setting forth both a right of privacy and a provision for abortion if that was their desire. But they knew that anything they could implement through legislation could be subsequently reversed through legislation and they sought to prevent that by wrongly embedding their phony "right of privacy" in the Constitution with a specious interpretation.
Thus they capriciously and wrongly changed the Constitution to enforce their narrow agenda on all of the people for all time.
That was EXACTLY what the Constitution's authors feared and sought to prevent.
|
|
| cdnreprtr |
Posted - 2/13/2013 7:08:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well...
The SCOTUS did exactly that in DoC v Heller when it interpreted and expanded the clear words of the 2nd amendment "well regulated militia" to mean include an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, within the home and within federal enclaves.
it also struck down 1975 firearms regulations which, among other things, imposed that HUGE restriction in Liberty and Rights: that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded or bound by a trigger lock"
Wow.
I wonder what part of the constitution specifically gives people the specific right to LOADED and UNLOCKED weapons.
Please
Quote, cite the specific original constitutional clause.
Oh yeah ... It's juridical interpretation. Just this time, from cons.
FAIL.
(Which btw, just proves again you're a ignorant idiot. )
|
|
26–28 out of 28 messages
Log in to customize alerts, subscribe to newsletters, and apply to jobs.
June 4, 2013 | San Francisco
