You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Could a SCOTUS Justice Vote "No"?
- Thread starter RDak
- Start date
PT111, another part of the equation one has to remember was that at the time the federal government couldn't really afford to sustain a standing army when it wasn't needed. We'd racked up a lot of debt during the Revolutionary War. By 1796, the size of the US Army was down to just 3,359 men. A volunteer militia was necessary to make up the defense in any situation where local defense or fast reactions were needed.
Excellent point. There are many things that we take for granted right now as rights that were never mentioned in the BOR or Constitution but are from SCOTUS rulings. When those who talk about the SCOTUS creating laws or interpretating the Constitution they need to keep in mind such things as:
A wife cannot testify against her husband
A reporter cannot be forced to give up his source
Conversations between a citizen and his piest/pastor/lawyer are confidential
Taped conversations
Telephone conversations as hearsay
and the list goes on. All of these are strictly interpretations of the Constitution and many could never have been envisioned by the Founding Faters.
What is most important to remember is that the members of the Supreme Court often have a personal agenda that they clearly believe is more important than their oath of office. They will interpret the constitution to support what they see as a greater good, so it almost doesn't matter what the words in the constitution say, or what the founding fathers meant it to say. If members of the SCOTUS really cared what the constitution was intended to mean the 2nd amendment arguements would not occur. But if a particular member of the court believes personally that guns are evil, too dangerous to be entrusted to ordinary citizens, etc. (the usual anti-gun collection of beliefs) they will use any opportunity possible to interpret the constitution in a way that supports this underlying greater goal, i.e., of getting rid of guns by other than the military and police forces. The key goal for pro-2A folks should be to get people on the court who openly share our beliefs when it comes to gun ownership.
That is entirely incorrect. A person cannot be compelled to testify against his/her spouse, but is certainly free to do so voluntarily. That's a rather big difference.A wife cannot testify against her husband
Last edited:
That is entirely incorrect. A person cannot be compelled to testify against his/her spouse, but is certainly free to do so voluntarily. That's a rather big difference.
Are you sure about that. It is my understanding that wife cannot be called as a prosecution witness unless she is the actor in the prosecution even if she wants to. For instance you kill someone, go home and tell your wife that carries the same confidentiality as you telling your lawyer or priest. Any conversations between a wife and husband are confidential unless one of then brings suit or charges against the other.
In my opinion all of the arguments about 2A both pro and con have nothing to do with the original intent of the Founders and most of what is spouted is nothing more that BS quotes out of context trying to prove a point.
Well said sir.