Roe & Casey overturned.

[jon-nyc]

@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

[Horace]

@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]

@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]

@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.

1. I has to be related to an enumerated right (written down) - Roe was not - in the Constitution.

2. Failing #1, the 9th amendment comes into play - basically, there are rights that exist that are not enumerated.

3. 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.

4. 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.

[George K]

@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.

Schenck v United States

[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.

[George K]

@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]

@George-K I did not know that.

Come to think of it, I’ll bet Dred Scott was never explicitly overruled. Well, only by amendment.

[Jolly]

@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.

[jon-nyc]

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

[Jolly]

Time and place restrictions can be argued, but the ability of government to institute de facto total gun control has been struck down.

Now, if New York wishes to enact restrictions, such as mental health, training requirements, etc., they are free to do so. But a citizen with no criminal record should not be restricted from buying a firearm.

Or carrying it.

[taiwan_girl]

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

The right for a gun is not absolute, and I do not think that the writers of the constitution meant that. OF course, since we cannot talk to them, impossible to say. Since they could not envision the weapons of today, who knows what their thoughts would be

[Horace]

I imagine they would want to regulate nuclear weapons, which in theory could come in the shape of a gun.

I probably just pulled a Godwin in the context of gun debates. Comparing to nuclear weapons. I’m such a noob.

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

The right for a gun is not absolute, and I do not think that the writers of the constitution meant that. OF course, since we cannot talk to them, impossible to say. Since they could not envision the weapons of today, who knows what their thoughts would be

The right for personal arms, in a sane person, is absolute. Period. No equivocation. Clear as day.

Start your discussion, keeping that in mind.

[Larry]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

The right for a gun is not absolute, and I do not think that the writers of the constitution meant that. OF course, since we cannot talk to them, impossible to say. Since they could not envision the weapons of today, who knows what their thoughts would be

Oh yes, the right to own and carry a gun IS absolute.

[Mik]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

It’s not absolute, it is subject to ‘time place and manner’ restrictions just like the freedom of speech. Court said as much last week.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

The right for a gun is not absolute, and I do not think that the writers of the constitution meant that. OF course, since we cannot talk to them, impossible to say. Since they could not envision the weapons of today, who knows what their thoughts would be

No, we cannot. We can simply refer to what they wrote, which is unambiguous. And it is not for a lack of verbosity on their part. The constitutional convention produced a very specific document and framework. Every single piece of it was painstakingly hammered out.

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly @Larry I tink we will have to agree to disagree.

I just don't think that there are absolutes here. There are shades of gray.

For example:
*Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

What is excessive bail? $1 MM USD? If you are someone who has not savings, maybe $10000 is excessive? How can we have a $1MM bail for such a person? That seems to be against the constitution.

Do you guys think that any weapon should be legally able to be owned by anyone?

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@Jolly @Larry I tink we will have to agree to disagree.

I just don't think that there are absolutes here. There are shades of gray.

For example:
*Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

What is excessive bail? $1 MM USD? If you are someone who has not savings, maybe $10000 is excessive? How can we have a $1MM bail for such a person? That seems to be against the constitution.

Do you guys think that any weapon should be legally able to be owned by anyone?

Excessive bail gets knocked down all the time. The biggest discussion right now, is the number of places requiring very little or no bail, and the subsequent crime spikes.

And what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? The Founders were very familiar with capital punishment and had no problem with it. They did have a problem with crucifixion, impalement, being drawn and quartered, etc.

Should any weapon be owned by anyone? Remember, the Founders were rooted in a belief system that men had a right to self-defense. That self-defense extended to property and family. Self-defense has always involved the personal weapons of the day. Historically speaking, that would be long guns, handguns and edged weapons.

So yes, if you wish to have an AR-15, a Glock, a shotgun or a Bowie knife and are a law-abiding citizen without a felony conviction, have at it.

If you wish to possess a. 50 caliber BMG atop a Sherman tank with a 76mm main gun, and you can pass a FBI background check, be my guest.

Most Americans will do none of the latter and probably a majority will never own more than one personal weapon. But it's not the government's business to restrict personal weapons for most citizens.

[Larry]

@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:

@Jolly @Larry I tink we will have to agree to disagree.

I just don't think that there are absolutes here. There are shades of gray.

For example:
*Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*

What is excessive bail? $1 MM USD? If you are someone who has not savings, maybe $10000 is excessive? How can we have a $1MM bail for such a person? That seems to be against the constitution.

Do you guys think that any weapon should be legally able to be owned by anyone?

I'm aware what you think. But just because you think it doesn't make what you think correct. He Constitution is very clear - "Shall not be infringed". End. Of. Story. If you want to wander around looking for "shades of grey" the word "except" would need to be in that statement. It is not. Therefore, what you think simply doesn't matter. It says what it says "SHALL NOT be infringed."

It would help if you understood what the Constution was created for, and why. It is obvious to me that you do not.we were not "given" the right to bear arms by the Constitution.our right to bear arms existed already. After the Constitution was enacted into law, it was amended to clarify certain points, in this case, the right to own guns. We already had that right, it was a NATURAL RIGHT - the people wanted the Constitution amended to make that clear, not to "grant"us the right. The key words to the entire amendment are "Shall not be infringed".

N6n grey area. No "except". Just pure, unadulterated "before you guys came up with this new government we had a NATURAL RIGHT to own and possess any weapon we wanted to, and we won't agree to this new Constitution if you try to place a limit on that, PERIOD. So write it out clearly in case somewhere down the line someone pops up claiming they can limit our access to guns"

This means that if I want to go out any buy a Sherman tank, that is my right. Yes, I'm aware that over the years the leftwing "shades of grey" bull shit has chipped away at our rights and a lot of people have the view that the Constitution means whatever you happen to want it to mean. But the fact is, I have the natural right to buy a Sherman tank, and government does not have a right to stop me.

[jon-nyc]

They say that libertarian meetups eventually devolve into arguments over whether people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.