« Armed defenders put a dent in Milwaukee robbery rate | Main | Moms Demand Action for.... something other than common sense »
An interesting debate
From Glenn Reynolds, "The Second Amendment as Ordinary Constitutional Law," arguing that the 2A has become a normal part of Con law, legal doomsday did not come, and courts might as well accept that. Then, from David Wolitz, comes "Second Amendment Realism," suggesting that that just means the courts will screw it up like they have all the rest of the field. He phrases it a little more tactfully.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Fundamental Law Theory
"With this in mind, let us take a look at this essay with the following in mind: the fundamental law theory is based in part upon the proposition that the agencies it creates are subordinate to it and must operate within its confines. To quote Hamilton again, : 'To deny this proposition would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.'"
In defense of the Constitution, Carey (1989)
People must learn first that the Courts are ALL subordinate to the Constitution and because they are subordinate, the courts have no authority to interpret the Constitution. The sole recourse of the Courts is to read the words EXACTLY as stated. They have no authority to interject or imply or do any other thing to the words of the People.
It's like the same sex marriage laws. It appears that the majority of states had or have laws against same sex marriage. Thus according to Blackstone, the People have spoken and the judges being subordinate to the People have no say over the People.
From Blackstone:
For whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.
Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6
It is time to return the Courts to their legitimate less powerful place. The Courts above all or at least equally to all the branches of government have stolen powers never granted. AND through the thefts, the Courts have aided in the destruction of everything the Framers attempted to create.
None of this is new. Marshall was one of the worst. He demonstrated a total lack of grammatical understanding when interpreting the word "among" OR he was one hell of a lying SOB who simply did whatever without paying attention to the legitimacy of his actions.
We are in the sad position we are in because the People are ignorant and those who we elect are corrupt.
Yeah courts seem to love to play word games to avoid doing the obvious and correct thing to protect rights.
I actually had this argument back when, and my stance is that there's a whale of a difference between "You have this right, so I'm gonna torture logic and common sense so I can deprive you of it" and, "You don't have any rights in this, so the government and the courts can do what they wish with no explanation at all".
Judges don't work as hard as they do to get on the bench just to sit there and apply laws that are written by somebody else.
I don't know but I think David Wolitz is probably right. Given the opportunity That is what the courts will do just about every time