The Federalist Papers

This may be nit-pickin, however, those that think Miller lost because he didn't show up have no understanding of Supreme Court process.

Cases are not heard before the Court in the same manner as in lesser courts. By the time a case reaches the Court and is heard, Constitutional issues are being scrutinized, thus the principals involved can be deceased and the case goes on until finale. Law is being made. The judges reach their opinion and write them.

Miller lost because the Court "believed" that shotguns were not a military weapon....the majority opinion even stated that they weren't sure..."they are unaware of military useage of shotguns". That is the whole irony of Miller and why the Court has resisted hearing another 2ndA case. They were dead wrong and knew it afterwards. As has been extensively discussed here....any new 2ndA case de facto opens up Miller to be reversed or at the very very least, re-opened. ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE HINGED ON MILLER! Thus, the new case that the Court would be willing to hear would have be shelved until MILLER was worked out.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
So am I to understand that according to the Miller case we have the right under the 2nd to own MILITARY weapons? After all the shotgun was ruled as a "non-military" weapon, right?

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
John,

Yes, if Miller had been carrying a Thompson sub-machine gun (which was clearly a gun in use by the military) he would have won. The court upheld the National Firearms Act (NFA) 0f 1934 because Millers case revolved around a sawed off shotgun.
The NFA was never challenged again by the supreme court and most federal gun control laws use that law as the precedent.
Miller is a strange kind of ruling because while it upholds the 2nd amendment, it didn't strike down the NFA - the court could only rule on whether Millers arrest was constitutional.
The whole thing is very twisted because many current gun laws use a "sporting use" criteria - sporting arms are not protected under the 2nd amendment and yet, they use that criteria to ban military arms.
I too wish someone would challenge these laws directly as second amendment issues. Either we have a bill of rights or we don't. If they uphold the bill of rights, good. If not we at least know where we stand and we can "Rush tumultously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in our courage and despair" as Hamilton advises us to do..


------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Miller did not lose simply for failing to show up with counsel. There was no adversarial process as a result. There was no one to contradict the government's attorney when he asserted that sawed off shotguns have no military use. On the contrary, shotguns have been used in every war we've been in. The Court, based on the wording of US vs. Miller, would have ruled in Miller's favor if they had seen such testimony.

That is the logic behind saying Miller lost by not showing up. This Court was apparently ready to rule in favor of the ownership of military weapons. It's a damn shame.
 
It's a strange world you live in when, if you compromise, you also 'lose'.

If it weren't for the Anti-Federalist we wouldn't have a Bill of Rights. Period.

How that can be spun into a 'loss' and not simply a compromise is beyond me.
 
I don't think you are really grasping the Federalists point in this Bill of Rights thing...
The Constitution is written from the standpoint that only those powers specifically granted by that document can be exercised by the bodies in question.
Ie: Since it doesn't say that the government can ban arms or tax citizens directly, they couldn't do so. There were no "amendments" and no provision to add amendments. Federal powers were locked in stone and to change any portion would have taken a national referendum and an enormous amount of effort on the part of anyone attempting to do so.
With the amendments in place, it merely takes a group of legislators to vote and override any of the previous amendments. Basically, the amendments give the federal government the vehicle to crush state and citizens rights.
I'll point to the 16th amendment which grants the feds the right to levy an income tax. Prior to this provision, the federal government was beholden to the states. If they needed money they came to the states, hat in hand and begged. Now, the feds tax citizens directly and then order the states to comply with federal directives to get any money back. It totally negates the tenth amendment, the "capstone" of the bill of rights.
Every federal law affecting the states or the citizenry is a violation of the constitution and you can thank the amendment process for giving them that power..

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Keith,

Go back and read the Constitution, Article V gives the procedure for amending the Constitution. It is part of the original Constitution as proposed by the Constitutional Convention. Not amended, not changed. This is from the document originally ratified by the states:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
 
Come on, Keith, amending the Constitution wasn't a means of destroying the states, as such amendments had to be ratified BY the states; After getting a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which was originally appointed by the states to represent their interests in the federal government. Destroying the states is being accomplished by IGNORING the Constition, not AMENDING it; That's what this "living document" garbage is all about: Making changes in the power relationship between the states and the federal government by judicial fiat, which the states would never have been willing to ratify if proposed as amendments. And which the states can't reverse by clarifying amendments, because the Congress refuses to origninate any amendment to reverse the Supreme court's transfer of state powers to the federal government. Leaving the states with two options: Either suffer under federal usurpations of power, or chuck the whole Constitution through a constitutional convention. Even that would be problematic, as the Constitution doesn't specify how delegates to such a convention would be selected. I wouldn't put it past Congress to declare that THEY were the states' delegates, and thus render that last option short of civil war futile.
 
Brett,

I'm not a Constitution basher or even a Bill of Rights basher. Its a pretty good document. But it was written by honest men who perhaps underestimated the venality of those who would follow.
In my estimation, the tenth amendment says it all. It underscores and reinforces the underlying premise of the Constitution - that the rights and powers granted government can NOT grow beyond those things specified in the document.
However, our politicians (and our citizens) simply ignore that and add amendments or "reinterpret" the document to put through any piece of trash legislation that suits their purpose for the moment.

"He who sacrifices essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither" - Franklin.
I've probably misquoted that, but its essentially what we are seeing happen to our way of life today.


------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top