Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?
Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.
In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.
In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.
I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.
Thanks Kirata. Lucid. I get it.
Subjective perhaps on my part, but seem to underscore the point that it's a product of the 18th century, no longer reflecting "intent" in the context of the 21st century.
I suppose that's up to Congress, though, or the Supreme Court. I've not a lot of faith in either these days.
Its not actually up to either. The supreme court is supposed to faithfully interpret the law.
This is the right's biggest gripe with the left. There is a path to modify the law. Its called an amendment. It has clearly enumerated instructions. Its the rules we americans agreed to live by.
It is an egregious abridgement of the political process when a court invents laws (roe v wade) or abridges laws (Affirmative action decisions) merely because it wants too.
Congress passes laws. But the people pass amendments.
The depth of your 'lack of information' is truly bad!
It is up to both Congress *AND* the US Supreme Court to handle the US Constitution, the amendments, and federal laws in current existence (not to mention the Executive Branch). They however, handle this from uniquely different points of view. The US Supreme Court can not change nor modify the US Constitution nor the amendments within. It must, to the best of its ability, be fair, good, and faithful to the US Constitution (aka free of political bias). Congress can create, modify, and nullify laws on the books through bills passed by both the Senate and House. This includes any section of the US Constitution and the amendments.
There is a path to modify a law, its called 'creating a bill that addresses some or all the parts of an existing law'. A bill that is modified in Congress before being voted into law, has one or more amendments. An amendment in US Law, is often referred to as the twenty-seven amendments attached to the US Constitution (the first ten being referred to as 'The Bill of Rights'). There is an explanation in the US Constitution for changing, updating, creating, and nullifying the document: Article V. This usually by way of a Constitutional Convention. An 'no', they are not held very often.
There are plenty of rulings, Phydeaux, that conservatives dislike (i.e. Roe vs. Wade) and liberals (i.e. Heller vs. District of Columbia). There are rulings that Americans, regardless of political view, seem to dislike (i.e. Citizens United vs. FEC). An that its hoped the highest court of the land makes the best decisions. Even if they are not popular at the time (i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education). The problem is when the court makes a decision that is NOT in the best interests of people, how is it corrected?
Congress passes bills. Those bills become law if certain conditions are met (i.e. the President signs the bill into law). The 'people' do not pass amendments, that would be Congress under Article V.
I'm afraid one of us information is bad. But as usual - its you.
The US constitution certainly holds the procedures to modify the constitution. There are two methods - Via an amendment passed by congress and ratified by the states, or via a constitutional convention.
However, when you say.
quote:
There is an explanation in the US Constitution for changing, updating, creating, and nullifying the document: Article V. This usually by way of a Constitutional Convention.
You are completely in error. No amendment to the constitution has ever been passed via constitutional convention since the US government has been established. In fact, there has never been a constitutional convention since our founding.
You are completely wrong, in a second area:
quote:
The problem is when the court makes a decision that is NOT in the best interests of people, how is it corrected?
Congress passes bills. Those bills become law if certain conditions are met (i.e. the President signs the bill into law).
Completely 100% WRONG.
If something has been found to be unconstitutional, congress has NO power to 'fix' it - short of proposing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.
It bloody wouldn't be three coequal branches of government otherwise, now would it.
Many dimocrats think that the government is meant to solve problems. The government, rather, is meant to do nothing. Modifying the government, the constitution is meant to be hard. The only time policy change happens swiftly is when the congress, the president, the supreme court and the people are in agreement.
Thank God.
|
RE: Duty to retreat... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread