Supreme @ MindSay 
court
Do we really need someone like this 'again' as president? I don't think so! How anyone can believe this is beyond me, How any one can believe that we should not have these kind of rights continue as part of our national identity is hard for me to understand.
blessings
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY June 13, 2008
Here's McCain, in his own words, proving exactly how out of touch he really is:
"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." *
What???
Yesterday's powerful decision by the Court (a decision Americans should be proud of) affirmed a fundamental constitutional right -- in this case, the right of a detainee to challenge the government's grounds for confining him. What does McCain think is so bad about that?
Does he think protecting the right to be heard in court is...
- ...worse than locking thousands of Americans in internment camps because they had Japanese ancestry? (Korematsu v. United States -- 1944)
- ...worse than forcing African Americans to sit at the back of the bus? (Plessy v. Ferguson -- 1896)
- ...worse than slavery? (Dred Scott v. Sanford -- 1857)
Really, Senator McCain?
of whether individual Americans have the right to keep and bear arms
or whether it a collective right of the people for service in a state militia.
That question is at the heart of a long, impassioned debate
about how much power the government has to keep people
from owning guns and it could soon be decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court in a case about one of the nation's
strictest gun control laws.
Set for arguments today, March 18 and with a decision expected by late June,
the nation's highest court could resolve once and for all the much-disputed
meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Written 219 years ago, the amendment says, "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."
Few constitutional law issues have triggered more scholarly debate
and historical research on whether the Constitution's authors intended
to guarantee an individual right or a collective right tied to service
in a state-regulated militia, like today's National Guard.
The arguments follow a series of mass shootings in the past year
-- multiple killings on at least three college campuses, two shopping centers
and one Missouri town meeting.
Gun deaths average 80 a day in the United States, 34 of them homicides,
according to Centers for Disease Control data, and yet the gun issue has
barely registered in the U.S. presidential campaign.
If the court finds it is an individual right, gun control advocates fear it could
place in jeopardy not only the ban on private handgun ownership in the
U.S. capital at issue in the case, but also other laws around the country
regulating and restricting private possession of firearms.
The Supreme Court's last review of the Second Amendment came in
a five-page discussion in an opinion issued nearly 70 years ago that
failed to definitively resolve the constitutional issue.
That could change when the justices consider whether a 32-year old
Washington, D.C., law banning private possession of handguns violates
the Second Amendment rights of individuals unaffiliated
with any state-regulated militia.
DIVISIVE ISSUE
Former top U.S. Justice Department officials including former
Attorney General Janet Reno, law professors, linguistic experts
and historians all argued the Second Amendment protects
the right of people only to keep arms for militia service.
On the other side, the National Rifle Association, a majority of
the U.S. Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives
argued an individual has the right to possess arms.
Believe it or not, as they were trampling over all the other amendments,
The current administration, under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft,
reversed the position the federal government had taken for decades
and said in 2001 the Second Amendment protected an individual right
to possess firearms for a lawful private purpose.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's chief advocate
before the Supreme Court, filed a brief with the justices that adopted
many arguments made previously by legal scholars for an individual
right to keep arms.
He said placement of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights
reinforced the view that it was intended to put certain individual private
activities beyond the reach of the national government.
Others disagreed, including 15 historians.
"As histories of the Revolutionary era, we are confident ... that the authors
of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing
the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding
restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms," they said.
Three professors of linguistics and English said the amendment's purpose
was to preserve or perpetuate a well-regulated militia and that it used
unmistakably military language.
"The term 'bear arms' is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military
service, fight," they said in citing the Oxford English Dictionary.
Former high-ranking U.S. military officers filed a brief that argued another
interpretation -- that the amendment guarantees a blend of
individual and community rights.
"The Second Amendment ensures both the individual's right to posses firearms,
subject to reasonable regulation, and the constitutional goal of collective
defense readiness," they said.
The Second Amendment is written in two clauses,
a prefatory and an operative clause.
The first clause, "a well regulated militia" is prefatory.
The second clause, "the right of the people" is operative.
Those either choose not to recognize this, or don't know English grammar.
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one,
the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders
of the right—“the people.”
That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.
It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the
interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation.
Since the 2nd Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution)
does not clearly and specifically deny personal gun ownership,
it can simply be argued that there is no legal basis for banning
personal gun ownership.
The National Guard is NOT a professional Army. A professional
at anything makes the major portion of his living from that activity.
Members of the National Guard are "part-time" soldiers, their
professions are the jobs that they get pulled away from.
Having said that, the 2nd amendment states that THE PEOPLE have
right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights addresses three groups
the country, the states and THE PEOPLE.
That means that ANY CITIZEN can own a gun.
Of course, any group would be hard pressed trying to defend themselves
(with a bunch of hunting rifles) from the government
unless you hid in caves or underground tunnels
and struck only when you had the advantage
Our military has had a poor track record when trying to fight
people who's nation was at stake
The military industrial complex mighty as it may be,
is no match for the sands of time, nor to those with the will and of free mind.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Congress on Friday urged the Supreme Court to side with gun owners in an upcoming case testing whether an individual has a guaranteed right to bear arms.
Lawmakers want the Supreme Court to end a Washington, D.C., ordinance that prevents legal handgun ownership.
The bipartisan group of senators and representatives signed on to a legal brief supporting a challenge by District of Columbia residents to own a handgun for protection in their home.
The justices hold oral arguments March 18, and could provide a landmark ruling on a legal question that has largely gone answered since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.
In their "amicus" brief, 55 senators and 250 representatives urged the high court to strike down the district's ordinance that prevents citizens from legally owning a handgun.
"We're talking about law-abiding folks -- like you and me -- who cannot exercise their rights simply because of the city they live in," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana. "Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others. They didn't mean for the laws to apply at some times and not others."
Tester made his remarks in a conservative think-tank speech, along with a co-sponsor, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
Don't Miss
Sixty-eight Democrats in the House and nine in the Senate were joined a larger Republican bloc filing the brief.
The case is the most closely watched this Supreme Court term, and legal and political experts say it has already ignited a fierce social debate this election year.
The issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or is it a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- and therefore subject to strict government regulation?
The amendment states, "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."
District leaders had urged the high court to intervene, saying refusal to do so could prove dire.
A group of 18 Democratic members of the House last month filed their own amicus brief, supporting the district. Led by Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pennsylvania, the lawmakers said the proper venue for deciding gun-control measures is in Congress, not the courts.
"Whether the regulation or prohibition of a particular weapon implicates the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia,' over which Congress has responsibility, is precisely the kind of question best left to the political branches to resolve," they said.
A federal appeals court in March ruled the handgun ban to be unconstitutional, as well as a provision that rifles and shotguns -- which are legal to own in the district -- be kept in the home unloaded, and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled. The rifle regulations are not currently at issue before the Supreme Court.
The district's 31-year-old law has prevented most private citizens from owning and keeping handguns in their homes.
Chicago and and Washington are the only major U.S. cities that have such sweeping handgun bans. Courts have generally upheld bans of semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns in other cities.
Several district residents first challenged the law, some saying they wanted to do something about being constant victims of crime.
Key plaintiff Shelly Parker told CNN recently she wanted the right to have a handgun for peace of mind, and act as a responsible gun owner.
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said "So, I would just like the comfort of knowing at least that I could have a gun if I feel I need one."
Groups that filed supporting briefs include the National Rifle Association and Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense.
Groups supporting the district include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
heyy!
ALL day i've been reading a book for my english class, and its really boring! lol, uh yea so since last time....
My class went on a field trip to the Supreme Court and also to the capitol which was surprisingly fun. At the supreme court my 2 friends kiki and aiyana and i went 2 the bathroom and when we were washing our hands the trash can on the other side of the room starts swinging back and forth and we were like 'wtf' but didnt leave or anything. Then we heard footsteps around the corner (note, this was a big restroom) and then the doors slammed so i screamed but wasn't about 2 leave. So we walkd around and opend all the doors and no1 was in any of them which was freaky so we just started dippin out of there and across the whole damn place. it was soooooo funi tho. we were scared shitless but it was funi afterward. Then.....thursday in PE i sprained my ankle (AGAIN) but this time its not that bad and i can walk normaly and everything so i think i should be able to play in the basketball game on tuesday. Thats sumthin i cant wait 4, b/c its a showdown. The skool we're playin is really good but i duno...its just a showdown so i gotta play! lol, well i gtg my sister just got home so maybe we could go out and have a snowball fight.
xoxo
miaa
So today was the day. The begining of the "revolution" that was supposed to take this country back. I have one question though: What in the hell are you taking it back from? Back from the politicians? back from the right wing? the rich and powerful? ok. so maybe somehow you manage to wrest power from the rich and powerful who can squash you like a bug. Then what? start a popular revolution and overthrow the government and factory system and begin the Global Marxist revolution? I think not. If you knock someone out of power there is then a power vacuum. And who steps in but the Left. So all you revolutionaries and protesters would be accomplishing would be handing the power over to the rich and powerful on the Left. Congratulations you just fucked this country over..again..just differently. You see there isn't going to be a revolution to overthrow bush or the right wing or the left wing or the rich and powerful. why you ask? because the majority of this country is blind and content, fat and stupid and working too hard to spend time and energy organizing and protesting. the supposed protests today were a complete and absmysal failure. I didnt see it on any of the national news networks. Not even the bastards at CBS. maybe i missed some random 30 second clip showing people losing their jobs by walking out of work or gettin expelled from school for walking out. morons. be smart. there are other ways to get your point across. nuff said
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]