Roe & Casey overturned.
-
Come on @jolly You are telling me that it is okay for a sheriff to selectively decide by himself which laws he should follow or enforce?
Maybe I am incorrect, but my understanding is that the sheriff is there to enforce the laws, not to make a decision on the legality of them. He is not the judge of the county/state/country, etc.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 17:13 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
the sheriff is there to enforce the laws, not to make a decision on the legality of them.
They have to manage to a budget of time and money.
Most sheriffs can't afford to enforce every law all the time.
The have to pick and choose.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 18:53 last edited by
Prosecutorial discretion. Those entrusted to enforce the law has some discretion on whether to enforce the law on a case-by-case basis, though generally not to entirely ignore a particular law in all cases where the law applies.
A district attorney can choose not to prosecute an abortion violation case just as much as a local sheriff can choose not to pursue a gun law violation case, or for that matter, as much as a border patrol agent can choose not to pursue a particular undocumented border crosser — note that in these comparisons we are still talking about not prosecuting particular cases. Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
-
Prosecutorial discretion. Those entrusted to enforce the law has some discretion on whether to enforce the law on a case-by-case basis, though generally not to entirely ignore a particular law in all cases where the law applies.
A district attorney can choose not to prosecute an abortion violation case just as much as a local sheriff can choose not to pursue a gun law violation case, or for that matter, as much as a border patrol agent can choose not to pursue a particular undocumented border crosser — note that in these comparisons we are still talking about not prosecuting particular cases. Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 20:04 last edited by@Axtremus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
Such as, for instance, 'sanctuary cities', or governors who refuse to carry out death penalties.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 21:21 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 21:27 last edited by@Mik said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
They are still hurting from the ERA.
-
@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Hm. Just because the word "abortion" does not appear in the constitution does not necessarily mean that nothing about abortion can be deduced from the constitution.
That's correct. SCOTUS ruled that it is up to the states to decide whether to limit abortion or not. It is not unconstitutional, to do so. It is unconstitutional to impose a national "rule" (not law) without it being codified as such.
Canada, for example, has varying laws on when abortion can be performed. Certain provinces & territories limit, others do not.
Let the people decide.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 21:49 last edited by@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Let the people decide.
Oh, yeah, remember when Obama said one of the first things he would do when elected would be to codify abortion as legal throguhout the country. He had a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate for two years.
And then, nothing happened.
https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-blasted-not-codifying-roe-v-wade-democrat-failure-1719156
"Obama PROMISED that the FIRST thing he would do as president was Codify Abortion rights into law, he had a super majority and purposely didn't do it cuz Democrats want to run on it," tweeted comedian Jimmy Dore on Friday.
"And like clockwork, Democrat apologists excuse the powerful & want you to blame your neighbor," Dore said.
Amy Tarkanian, former chair of the Nevada Republican Party, also pointed to Democrats' majority during Obama's first two years.
"Democrats had a supermajority in 2008 and did not 'codify Roe,'" Tarkanian tweeted. "They control all branches of government RIGHT NOW and did not 'codify Roe'. To those who are so outraged right now, why don't you ask Obama and Biden why they didn't legislate this before the SCOTUS ruling?"
All of a sudden, it was "not my highest priority."
Biden promised to codify Roe too.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 22:50 last edited by
The codification is now complete.
-
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 22:56 last edited by
@Copper said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
The codification is now complete.
Not really.
It's only just begun.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
wrote on 26 Jun 2022, 23:57 last edited by@Mik said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
The Bible is a lot older than 250 years, and I think it's pretty durn relevant today.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
Agreed. But it is the law of the land. Roe never was, and it was only through an interpretation of "privacy" that it became legal throughout the country.
Now, the issue is in the hands of the voters. Elect people who will enact laws which you support, or overturn those you don't.
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 04:53 last edited by@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
Agreed. But it is the law of the land. Roe never was,
Yes it was, for half a century. That’s the meaning of the scotus ruling.
-
@Axtremus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
Such as, for instance, 'sanctuary cities', or governors who refuse to carry out death penalties.
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 08:08 last edited by@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Axtremus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
Such as, for instance, 'sanctuary cities', or governors who refuse to carry out death penalties.
Exactly. I do not think it is right.
Let us say this hypothetic. Lets say there is abortion clinic in Texas. State law says no abortions legal. County sheriff says he is not going to enforce that law. You are okay with that?
-
@Axtremus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
Such as, for instance, 'sanctuary cities', or governors who refuse to carry out death penalties.
-
@Horace sanctuary cities is a bad example because they’re not ignoring laws that they’re even allowed to enforce, let alone have any obligation to. They’re simply not reporting people to the feds
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 10:15 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Horace sanctuary cities is a bad example because they’re not ignoring laws that they’re even allowed to enforce, let alone have any obligation to. They’re simply not reporting people to the feds
So my other example must be good then. Thank you. That one was my favorite one anyway.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 10:48 last edited by@Mik said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
Maybe I don't completely understand, but I think of something like freedom of speech.
Is that absolute? No, it isn't. Is it specifically stated in the Constitution the exceptions? I am not sure but I don't think so.
The "case" that I learned about regarding freedom of speech was the you could not yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Did the constitution specifically state this? No. This rule was adapted to account for changes in society/technology, etc.
For me, same with guns. Does the right to bear arms absolute? No. Are there exceptions? Yes. Were the writers thinking that everyone should be allowed to own a machine gun? They did not even know what a machine gun was. So, was their intent to allow the "bearing of arms" to single shot musket rifles and every thing else was not allowed?
Did they mean that bearing of arms was acceptable only for case of war?
We try and put our thoughts into what they meant and our biases do effect whether we think that the current judges are deciding correctly.
I know that someone recommended "The Federal Papers" for background. I did read some of them, and searched for information on the thoughts on guns, but came away as confused as ever. I could not find anything in those papers that seemed to show that the writers of the constitution were in favor of unlimited arms abilities.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
Agreed. But it is the law of the land. Roe never was,
Yes it was, for half a century. That’s the meaning of the scotus ruling.
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 11:29 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Yes it was, for half a century. That’s the meaning of the scotus ruling.
See my other post "Deep Dive."
To summarize, for a law to be constitutional, it has to pass muster on several points.
-
I has to be related to an enumerated right (written down) - Roe was not - in the Constitution.
-
Failing #1, the 9th amendment comes into play - basically, there are rights that exist that are not enumerated.
-
Failing #2, Palko v Connecticut comes into play. Palko says that rights exist which are fundamental to the order of society, such as the right to marry, bear children etc.
-
Privacy (and here's were Roe comes into play) is only an issue when it is related to #1 or when it passes the Palko test. Stevens v Georgia was a case about pornography. Justice Marshall wrote the unanimous decision, saying that it is a 1st amendment right to read whatever you want, and watch whatever you want.
Roe is not grounded in the Constitution, and it fails the Palko test. Though it may have been the law of the land for 50 years, it was illegal in a majority of states for the preceding 200 years. Therefore, it has no basis in the reasonable order of society, as opposed to something else unnamed in the Constitution: marriage.
That's this guy's reasoning, in a nutshell. He really gets into the weeds, which I found fascinating.
Basically SCOTUS said that abortion is not a right in any fashion. If you want to permit or prohibit, it's to be done at the state level.
A footnote: Palko was eventually overturned, not on the basis of its reasoning but on the basis of double jeopardy. Interestingly, both Roe and Dobbs cite Palko as justification for their decisions.
-
-
@Mik said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
Maybe I don't completely understand, but I think of something like freedom of speech.
Is that absolute? No, it isn't. Is it specifically stated in the Constitution the exceptions? I am not sure but I don't think so.
The "case" that I learned about regarding freedom of speech was the you could not yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Did the constitution specifically state this? No. This rule was adapted to account for changes in society/technology, etc.
For me, same with guns. Does the right to bear arms absolute? No. Are there exceptions? Yes. Were the writers thinking that everyone should be allowed to own a machine gun? They did not even know what a machine gun was. So, was their intent to allow the "bearing of arms" to single shot musket rifles and every thing else was not allowed?
Did they mean that bearing of arms was acceptable only for case of war?
We try and put our thoughts into what they meant and our biases do effect whether we think that the current judges are deciding correctly.
I know that someone recommended "The Federal Papers" for background. I did read some of them, and searched for information on the thoughts on guns, but came away as confused as ever. I could not find anything in those papers that seemed to show that the writers of the constitution were in favor of unlimited arms abilities.
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 11:32 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
The "case" that I learned about regarding freedom of speech was the you could not yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.
-
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 11:37 last edited by jon-nyc
Regardless of what anyone thought of the logic behind roe (or Plessy for that matter) they were both the law of the land for half a century. Scotus can, and did, do that through a ruling.
-
Regardless of what anyone thought of the logic behind roe (or Plessy for that matter) they were both the law of the land for half a century. Scotus can, and did, do that through a ruling.
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 11:44 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Regardless of what anyone thought of the logic behind roe (or Plessy for that matter) they were both the law of the land for half a century. Scotus can, and did, do that through a ruling.
Did you know that Plessy has never been actually overruled? I didn't until a few minutes ago.
Despite its infamy, the decision has never been explicitly overruled. But a series of the Court's later decisions, beginning with the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education—which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine is unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities—have severely weakened Plessy to the point that it is considered to have been de facto overruled.
-
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Regardless of what anyone thought of the logic behind roe (or Plessy for that matter) they were both the law of the land for half a century. Scotus can, and did, do that through a ruling.
Did you know that Plessy has never been actually overruled? I didn't until a few minutes ago.
Despite its infamy, the decision has never been explicitly overruled. But a series of the Court's later decisions, beginning with the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education—which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine is unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities—have severely weakened Plessy to the point that it is considered to have been de facto overruled.
-
@Mik said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
Maybe I don't completely understand, but I think of something like freedom of speech.
Is that absolute? No, it isn't. Is it specifically stated in the Constitution the exceptions? I am not sure but I don't think so.
The "case" that I learned about regarding freedom of speech was the you could not yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Did the constitution specifically state this? No. This rule was adapted to account for changes in society/technology, etc.
For me, same with guns. Does the right to bear arms absolute? No. Are there exceptions? Yes. Were the writers thinking that everyone should be allowed to own a machine gun? They did not even know what a machine gun was. So, was their intent to allow the "bearing of arms" to single shot musket rifles and every thing else was not allowed?
Did they mean that bearing of arms was acceptable only for case of war?
We try and put our thoughts into what they meant and our biases do effect whether we think that the current judges are deciding correctly.
I know that someone recommended "The Federal Papers" for background. I did read some of them, and searched for information on the thoughts on guns, but came away as confused as ever. I could not find anything in those papers that seemed to show that the writers of the constitution were in favor of unlimited arms abilities.
wrote on 27 Jun 2022, 11:58 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Mik said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
Maybe I don't completely understand, but I think of something like freedom of speech.
Is that absolute? No, it isn't. Is it specifically stated in the Constitution the exceptions? I am not sure but I don't think so.
The "case" that I learned about regarding freedom of speech was the you could not yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Did the constitution specifically state this? No. This rule was adapted to account for changes in society/technology, etc.
For me, same with guns. Does the right to bear arms absolute? No. Are there exceptions? Yes. Were the writers thinking that everyone should be allowed to own a machine gun? They did not even know what a machine gun was. So, was their intent to allow the "bearing of arms" to single shot musket rifles and every thing else was not allowed?
Did they mean that bearing of arms was acceptable only for case of war?
We try and put our thoughts into what they meant and our biases do effect whether we think that the current judges are deciding correctly.
I know that someone recommended "The Federal Papers" for background. I did read some of them, and searched for information on the thoughts on guns, but came away as confused as ever. I could not find anything in those papers that seemed to show that the writers of the constitution were in favor of unlimited arms abilities.
When the Bill of Rights became law, it was legal for private citizens to own cannons. Until the NFA, private citizens owned machine guns without doing anything more than paying for it. Until the 1960's, an American citizen could order an "assault weapon" via mail order.
Gun rights have become narrowed through the years, to the point where government in some states is infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.
The Second Amendment is not hard to understand. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Founders wrote that, having recently fought a war with many Americans using their personal firearms to kill British soldiers (and Hessian mercenaries) fighting against them.
We are citizens. We are not subjects. We have overthrown one tyrannical government to create a republic. Jefferson was well aware of the foibles and natural tendencies of man. He knew that sometime in the future, the people may have to do so again.
Hence, the Second Amendment.