Bush picks Alito
- Thread starter JimW
- Start date
- Status
Blackwater OPS
New member
AMENDMENT XIV To the Constitution of the United States
Section 1.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Section 1.
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Rich Lucibella
Staff
I doubt Bush will appoint over recess and highly doubt Miers was a Stalking Horse.
In the first case, why would Bush "appoint" and open himself up to legacy charges of circumvention? Especially when Alito has credentials too impeccable to reject; any fight over him, in an election year, will hurt the Dems far worse than the Repubs; especially if there's a filibuster.
In the second case, I simply cannot believe that he (or Miers) would have set her up for the ridicule and criticism she's received simply to stall. If he'd wanted to do that, he could have simply taken the extra two weeks to "study" before nominating Alito.
Rob P.-
The Constitution is what it is. It's a limit on Federal Powers, not a one-size-fits-all template for State Constitutions. I want a judge who recognizes that and Alito apparently does....in spades. We can fight the State battles at the State levels. To the extent that a few states like CA turn Marxist, it will only add fuel for the others to hold their ground.
It seems that some of us really DO want SCOTUS to "legislate from the bench", so long as they legislate what "we" want. Speaking just for myself, I want SCOTUS to strictly interpret the Constitution. Let the chips fall as they may.
Rich
In the first case, why would Bush "appoint" and open himself up to legacy charges of circumvention? Especially when Alito has credentials too impeccable to reject; any fight over him, in an election year, will hurt the Dems far worse than the Repubs; especially if there's a filibuster.
In the second case, I simply cannot believe that he (or Miers) would have set her up for the ridicule and criticism she's received simply to stall. If he'd wanted to do that, he could have simply taken the extra two weeks to "study" before nominating Alito.
Rob P.-
The Constitution is what it is. It's a limit on Federal Powers, not a one-size-fits-all template for State Constitutions. I want a judge who recognizes that and Alito apparently does....in spades. We can fight the State battles at the State levels. To the extent that a few states like CA turn Marxist, it will only add fuel for the others to hold their ground.
It seems that some of us really DO want SCOTUS to "legislate from the bench", so long as they legislate what "we" want. Speaking just for myself, I want SCOTUS to strictly interpret the Constitution. Let the chips fall as they may.
Rich
Blackwater OPS
New member
Rich
And how do you interpret the 14th amendment? It is part of the constitution last time I checked. It has historically been applied to many of the other amendments in the bill of rights, why do you think the 2nd does not deserve the same treatment? Maybe it’s ok with you if "some" states turn Marxist, but what happens in CA seems to follow to the rest of the nation. These states are all part of one nation and we cannot allow rights to be trampled in place, and keep silent about it or condone it because it has not happened to us yet. Having a voice on the Supreme Court that recognizes this would be a victory, and certainly not legislating from the bench.
As far as State constitutions are concerned, they can provide many things and grant even further freedoms to the citizens of the States, but they cannot take away the fundamental rights given to us by the constitution. I think that the Civil War settled that.
And how do you interpret the 14th amendment? It is part of the constitution last time I checked. It has historically been applied to many of the other amendments in the bill of rights, why do you think the 2nd does not deserve the same treatment? Maybe it’s ok with you if "some" states turn Marxist, but what happens in CA seems to follow to the rest of the nation. These states are all part of one nation and we cannot allow rights to be trampled in place, and keep silent about it or condone it because it has not happened to us yet. Having a voice on the Supreme Court that recognizes this would be a victory, and certainly not legislating from the bench.
As far as State constitutions are concerned, they can provide many things and grant even further freedoms to the citizens of the States, but they cannot take away the fundamental rights given to us by the constitution. I think that the Civil War settled that.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Exactly my point. Let the CA laws be reviewed in context of strict constructionist interpretation. I'm confident of the result.
On the other side of the coin, we have the Commerce Clause, which is quickly becoming a catch all toward Federalization of of every waking moment.
You don't get to have it both ways:
A SCOTUS who will dictate to the states every nuance of firearms ownership yet not a single nuance of property rights, for example.
In short, I may be proven wrong, but I'm not at all uncomfortable with the way Alito will vote on Second Amendment issues. Powers will be pushed down to the States, which is as it should be; but not unlimited powers.
Rich
Blackwater OPS
New member
Rich
Well, I think we pretty much agree as far as what we believe is right, but you have more faith in the system than me. I hope you are right about that.
Well, I think we pretty much agree as far as what we believe is right, but you have more faith in the system than me. I hope you are right about that.
Hugh Damright
New member
CCW laws, for instance, are not despotic. If the people of one State want to have CCW, and the people of another State want to ban CCW, and both States do it their own way so that everyone gets what they want, that is not despotism.
Despotic gun laws would be (1) gun laws that are forced on a people against their will or (2) gun laws that are intended to disarm the general population.
I doubt that Bush is that, um, devious Rich. But...Rich said:
It was a point that had to be brought up, and by myself, as I had made reference to his lack of strategic skills earlier in the Meirs thread. I said, "I may just take back some of the things I said..." with the emphasis on "may."
Hugh Damright
New member
The 14th "Amendment" failed and was forced upon us at gunpoint. Maybe it's OK with you if the US Constitution is amended by a minority against the will of the House, the Senate, and the States. But I figure a government that will amend the Constitution by force will go on to define their amendment to mean whatever they want it to mean, and rule with despotism. And I think that's what some of y'all want, only you want YOUR kind of despotism, where every State is forced to have the laws and society that YOU prefer (as opposed to their own preference).
One of the prerequisites for free government is small communities i.e. States. If we try to do away with the States by making rights the same throughout the US, then we have left the Constitution and free government behind. Which is of course what the Civil War and the 14th "Amendment" were all about, an attack on free government.
And yes, to have a SCOTUS rule that rights must not vary from State to State would be legislating from the bench to the highest degree. It would be an attack on my free State, and Virginians have the collective right to keep and bear arms in defense of our free State, so BACK OFF!!
Hugh Damright
New member
Do they?
Are Californians against gun control and their despotic State Government is forcing it upon them? I was thinking that Californians are getting what they want ... I mean, if they were against gun control, why would they elect people like Boxer and Fineswine?
And I am not aware of any pending legislation intended to disarm all Californians.
I do believe that there are limits upon the States, and I think there may be a point that Californians want to ban certain weapons which are militia type weapons (i.e. semiauto rifles) and the SCOTUS could rule that these weapons are militia type weapons and that a State might require that they be stored a certain way or something but cannot outright ban them.
I think in Miller the SCOTUS said that they did not know if a sawed-off shotgun was a militia type weapon and so they did not know if they had any jurisdiction over the issue (the US has some jurisdiction over militia, not all aspects of our individual rkba). But if a semi-auto rifle isn't a militia weapon, then what is?
"I mean, if they were against gun control, why would they elect people like Boxer and Fineswine?"
It's because those two are elected by a few left-leaning urban areas that are heavily manipulated by an equally left-leaning press.
"And I am not aware of any pending legislation intended to disarm all Californians."
I can't help it if you're not paying attention. Do you think someone is going to introduce the "Californian Disarmament Act"? No. They go after ammo. They require expensive and unworkable gadgets on guns. They require State-administered "safety" checks on guns. They want to disarm the state one gun at a time.
Tim
It's because those two are elected by a few left-leaning urban areas that are heavily manipulated by an equally left-leaning press.
"And I am not aware of any pending legislation intended to disarm all Californians."
I can't help it if you're not paying attention. Do you think someone is going to introduce the "Californian Disarmament Act"? No. They go after ammo. They require expensive and unworkable gadgets on guns. They require State-administered "safety" checks on guns. They want to disarm the state one gun at a time.
Tim
- Status