Wyoming Firearm Protection Act

So the people can't be trusted to elect federal judges, but they can elect the people who appoint the judges? I still don't see the logic. What is the purpose?
 
The purpose is the isolation of the judiciary from popular whim. Courts are ideally correct, not popular.

In practice, all judges are elected, with some elected by fewer people than others.
 
"We don't want to be stuck with that sort of time scale with the 2nd Amendment."

The most probable way we will have the Second Amendment eroded is when the SCOTUS Justices distinguish the "new" case from the old case. So they will not have to overturn "precedent" or "super-precedent", they merely have to find a fact or two or so and "distinguish" the new case from Heller and McDonald and so it will go.
 
Popular whim? Is that what they call we the people these days? Isolating them from our whims seems to have also isolated them from logically interpreting the constitution.
 
Klyph, if you take offense at that, I wonder how you would view what the Founders called it?

Our system of federal government was originally set up to protect both the interests of the whimsical populace, but also the interests of the States themselves.

Sadly, the people were conned into giving up any State representation with the passage of the 17th amendment which gave us Senators, elected by the whimsy of the rabble.
 
I'm no political scholar, and perhaps my anger is misdirected, it just seems that power has been centralizing since the republic was founded and there's no end in sight. Corporate personhood really drove a nail in the coffin.
 
klyph3 said:
...Isolating them from our whims seems to have also isolated them from logically interpreting the constitution.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed.

Of course, whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests.

There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.
 
Here's what T. Jefferson had to say about Supreme Court justices. Seems to be the situation we're in today.


You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Click to expand...
 
klyph3 said:
Popular whim? Is that what they call we the people these days? Isolating them from our whims seems to have also isolated them from logically interpreting the constitution.
Click to expand...

As others have suggested above, whether isolation from popular whim is a good idea depends largely on whether one's own positions coincide with that whim. For instance, we only need to rearrange a few recent dates to imagine a popularly driven catastrophe.

If the question in Heller had been presented to a court popularly elected within the weeks following Sandy Hook, do you think the case might have been decided differently?

You made reference to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. You frame the current political issue, as many others do, in terms of corporate personhood. Yet, that is not the basis of the decision. The First Amendment notes that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech. The identity of the speaker is not a component of competent First Amendment analysis. However, in Citizens United Congress made a law abridging the freedom of speech.

If the worst I could tell you about the history of Supreme Court decisions was that they correctly apply precedent and the language of the Constitution without regard to popular will, I would be far more sanguine about the state of the court.
 
Jefferson said:
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Click to expand...

Art III said:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Click to expand...

Judicial power is the power to decide cases and controversies.
 
"Shall hold their offices during good behavior"
Who decides when they've crossed the threshold into "bad behavior"? Would a judgment clearly violating the constitution be considered bad behavior?
 
It'd be hard to point to clearly violating the constitution as they basically define/interpret the constitution as an inherent job description. I'd be more interested in what the process is for removing them for bad behavior. It's never been done that I'm aware of, and I'm not sure there's even an aparatus in place.
 
"Shall hold their offices during good behavior"
Who decides when they've crossed the threshold into "bad behavior"? Would a judgment clearly violating the constitution be considered bad behavior?
Click to expand...

When you get "bad" decisions the legal recourse is Article 5.
 
klyph3 said:
Who decides when they've crossed the threshold into "bad behavior"?
Click to expand...
JimDandy said:
...I'd be more interested in what the process is for removing them for bad behavior. It's never been done that I'm aware of, and I'm not sure there's even an aparatus in place.
Click to expand...
The process is impeachment, and it has been done with federal judges.

And according to Wikipedia, there have been 63 investigations for impeachment.
 
So my understanding is, that if a federal AWB was enacted, Wyoming probably could not challenge it directly - because they'd have no standing correct?

But part of their law also includes defending a Wyoming citizen charged under any type of federal ban. So... wouldn't that amount to Wyoming challenging a federal ban, and couldn't or wouldn't they challenge it on 10th Amendment grounds? I'm not saying they'd win, I'm just trying to undertand the possible way it could play out.
Click to expand...

I'm not wondering about Wyoming arresting federal agents. I am wondering if Wyoming because of this act, can get a case before the courts that challenges federal firearms law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top