The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(08-20-2020, 03:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-19-2020, 09:29 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2020, 07:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One common label is the justification phrase and the implementation phase.  For example in some state constitutions they wrote that as legislators have to have free speech, all shall have free speech.  Rights are granted by God.  They apply to everybody, not just government employees.  The interpreting you are suggesting would take away free speech from the people.

The Founding Fathers had an opinion and wrote it down both in the Constitution and elsewhere.  If the courts honor the text or the intent of the authors, they come to one conclusion.  The alternative is that the Constitution is only a suggestion and that the justices are supposed to legislate from the bench.

Now I tend to agree that the Second is obsolete.  A reasonable compromise would be to allow weapons sufficient for target shooting, hunting and self defense, but to allow state regulation of military weapons.  Assault rifles just didn't exist in the Founding Father's time.

But such a compromise was unthinkable a short time ago.  For years the Jim Crow interpretation that made the entire Bill of Rights go away was applied to the Second.  The Democrats got used to it, and thought the Jim Crow court's interpretation was correct.  Meanwhile, the conservatives were correct.  Both sides clung to their positions with a ferocity that made compromise impossible.

Not sure this will hold true in a 4T.  The Democrats could very well take the congress and White House, but Trump has still appointed a lot of young judges who honor strict construction and intent of the authors.  The amendment process still counts on winning states, which gives an unreasonable advantage to the more rural population.  You will have to wait on the progressives appointing judges willing to legislate from the bench.  That would lead to prying weapons from cold dead fingers.

But a real compromise will have to wait on the election.  That is not apt to be the first thing Biden will want to work on first assuming a win.  Save the hard stuff which might trigger a revival of conservative feeling slide for a while.  You don't want to invite the next replacement for Trump.  You want to give the more reasonable conservatives a chance to consolidate their influence.

Unlike the 1st Amendment (and others), the 2nd is unique in having a justification for the right it espouses.  It's not unreasonable to assume that the right is intended to be limited to certain activities, or why is only that one purpose a justification?  And let's also be honest.  No right is absolute, including the biggies in the 1st.

That's right. And the Constitution gives the job of interpreting it to the courts, not the founding fathers. I was glad to see the Democrats bring up the issue at the convention tonight. I wasn't sure they had the guts. They replayed Joe Biden promising that he would never give up the fight for effective gun regulation. It may not be the first item on their long agenda, but the Democrats will pass something this decade. Trump may have engineered a ruling against it, and gun laws haven't fared too well in the courts in recent years. But laws have been passed requiring that they be taken from people who are not qualified to have them. That's as far as confiscation from the cold dead hands of the gun fanatics will go. They may no longer be able to legally buy those weapons which even Bob says above can at least be regulated. That does not stop the fanatics from crying foul. Many Republicans fear any regulation at all, and they place a much higher value on military weapons than on the first right mentioned in our founding document.

Interpretation and changing American laws is not the job of of the lower courts. The job of the lower courts is to enforce and uphold American laws that are in place and maintain the integrity of the American legal system.