10-09-2018, 02:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2018, 02:27 PM by Eric the Green.)
(10-09-2018, 04:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(10-08-2018, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The whole second amendment issue might come up, but it might not; we are probably not ready for that one in this 4T. The first question is whether we can add a couple of justices, and impose term limits. If so, then perhaps the Heller interpretation could be overturned, and we go back to seeing gun rights as belonging only to members of well-trained militias, which in our time means the national guard and the cops, and end the interpretation that provides individual gun rights. That would be fine with me. It depends on how people will feel 10 years from now about the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unleashed by today's permissive laws. There's nothing constitutional that can be done about justices legislating from the bench that I can see. The constitution already defines their job, and they must mediate and adjudicate what the law means and apply the constitution and precedent to it and to today's needs in specific cases, rather than imposing strict literalism.
This likely belongs in a Second Amendment thread, but you don't seem to understand how the law is written.
The founding fathers were against privilege, were for rights. They often used the justification - implementation method of writing law in state constitutions. You justify creating a privilege for a small group which clearly needed it, then implemented a Right of the People. You give the protections that would have gone to a privileged few to all. That is how reading the 2nd becomes crystal clear.
It illustrates the many tweaks I would try to make. You could not misinterpret the 2nd if the justification clause were removed. By using the justification - implementation format, they opened the door for the Jim Crow Supreme Court to effectively remove a Right of the People. They went after the whole Bill or Rights at that time, legislating Jim Crow law from the judicial bench, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights. They did not want the federal government to protect the blacks from the local establishment.
Now, they glorified violence much more during the age of revolutions and civil wars. Firearms have become much more deadly. Values have shifted enough that the Second might be looked at someday.
But not soon. Enough people have held on to the old values to skewer the result of the constitutional convention. I think you would go further honoring the old values rather than to try to coerce a change.
Possession and use of firearms is imposition of violence on the people, and support for the arms industry. It hasn't the slightest thing to do with any human rights, and only American conservatives think it does. The second amendment was put in place so that southerners would have arms to suppress a slave rebellion.
But I didn't say I thought changes to the 2nd were likely soon. Interpretation depends on the make-up of the Court, which will not change unless the Court itself is changed due to wholesale block of progress in all fields by the Kavanaugh Kangeroo Court. But that's not a constitutional change to the 2nd amendment itself, if it happens.
Oh and btw, this IS a second amendment thread. It's back on topic
