SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
That might explain why you spend so much time arguing about what it means.
-
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
That might explain why you spend so much time arguing about what it means.
@Doctor-Phibes said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Isn't it also one of the shortest?
That might explain why you spend so much time arguing about what it means.
-
Fine. Amend it.
The American Constitution is difficult to amend. On purpose. Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Fine. Amend it.
The American Constitution is difficult to amend. On purpose. Probably why it is one of the oldest among the Free World.
You are correct and it does have a tried and true amending formula.
-
Maybe the constitution does not change, but the interpretation of it changes. To me, no constitutional right is absolute. There are always some sort of restrictions on them.
And, there are many cases over the years where it was interpreted one way and maybe that was reversed.
With the #2 Amendment, at some point, courts interpreted it to mean that not all arms were covered. For example, I could go out and buy a nuclear bomb. Other arms (like machine guns) require a pretty detailed background examination, etc.
-
Maybe the constitution does not change, but the interpretation of it changes. To me, no constitutional right is absolute. There are always some sort of restrictions on them.
And, there are many cases over the years where it was interpreted one way and maybe that was reversed.
With the #2 Amendment, at some point, courts interpreted it to mean that not all arms were covered. For example, I could go out and buy a nuclear bomb. Other arms (like machine guns) require a pretty detailed background examination, etc.
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Maybe the constitution does not change, but the interpretation of it changes. To me, no constitutional right is absolute. There are always some sort of restrictions on them.
And, there are many cases over the years where it was interpreted one way and maybe that was reversed.
With the #2 Amendment, at some point, courts interpreted it to mean that not all arms were covered. For example, I could go out and buy a nuclear bomb. Other arms (like machine guns) require a pretty detailed background examination, etc.
When we really, really get ourselves screwed, is when we stray from original intent. The problem with the "Living Constitution" bullshit, is that the Constitution can mean whatever who is in power wants it to mean.
Human nature does not change. The thirst for power does not change. The desire of the powerful to trample whomever or whatever they need to, in order to maintain power or acquire more power has never abated since man started to walk on this planet.
The Living Constitution is just a gilding of Red Queen rules, by those who have the power to do so.
-
BTW, look at how interpreting a constitution any way the powerful may wish, is working in Russia right now.
-
BTW, look at how interpreting a constitution any way the powerful may wish, is working in Russia right now.
I suggest you not conflate the two, Russia and The USA, for a constitutional law library full of reasons starting with institutions of governance and the federalist system.
No comparison whatsoever and any attempt to make one will amount to nothing more than a straw man.
-
Human nature does not change. The thirst for power does not change. The desire of the powerful to trample whomever or whatever they need to, in order to maintain power or acquire more power has never abated since man started to walk on this planet.
Truer words were never spoken.
-
I am not a Constitution lawyer (obviously. LOL), but the US constitution has always been changing. Maybe "changing" is not the right word, but it is always being interpreted over time. That is why sometimes the Supreme Court will rule one way and then at some future point, they rule another way.
Also, I would bet that every amendment has some sort of restriction attached to it that were not part of the original wording.
For example:
Amendment #1 -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,It is not absolute. Courts have said there are restrictions on free speech
Amendment #2 - right to bear arms
It is not absolute. There are restrictions here also. Even if they had the money to do it, a twelve year old could not go and buy an nuclear bomb.
etc.
-
I am not a Constitution lawyer (obviously. LOL), but the US constitution has always been changing. Maybe "changing" is not the right word, but it is always being interpreted over time. That is why sometimes the Supreme Court will rule one way and then at some future point, they rule another way.
Also, I would bet that every amendment has some sort of restriction attached to it that were not part of the original wording.
For example:
Amendment #1 -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,It is not absolute. Courts have said there are restrictions on free speech
Amendment #2 - right to bear arms
It is not absolute. There are restrictions here also. Even if they had the money to do it, a twelve year old could not go and buy an nuclear bomb.
etc.
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
the US constitution has always been changing
Er, no. Not "always."
The last amendment, "change" was 32 years ago.
The one before that was 53 years ago.
The one before that was in 1967.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States
-
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
the US constitution has always been changing
Er, no. Not "always."
The last amendment, "change" was 32 years ago.
The one before that was 53 years ago.
The one before that was in 1967.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States
@George-K said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
the US constitution has always been changing
Er, no. Not "always."
The last amendment, "change" was 32 years ago.
The one before that was 53 years ago.
The one before that was in 1967.The interpretations seem to have always been changing, which is essentially the same thing. Wasn't Roe vs. Wade decided based on one interpretation, and then overturned based on a different one?
-
I am not a Constitution lawyer (obviously. LOL), but the US constitution has always been changing. Maybe "changing" is not the right word, but it is always being interpreted over time. That is why sometimes the Supreme Court will rule one way and then at some future point, they rule another way.
Also, I would bet that every amendment has some sort of restriction attached to it that were not part of the original wording.
For example:
Amendment #1 -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,It is not absolute. Courts have said there are restrictions on free speech
Amendment #2 - right to bear arms
It is not absolute. There are restrictions here also. Even if they had the money to do it, a twelve year old could not go and buy an nuclear bomb.
etc.
@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Also, I would bet that every amendment has some sort of restriction attached to it that were not part of the original wording.
For example:
Amendment #1 -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,It is not absolute. Courts have said there are restrictions on free speech
A recent case which allows restrictions on free speech
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a California traffic law that bans honking â other than to warn another driver â turning down a challenge to the law from a woman ticketed for honking while driving by a rally outside her congressmanâs office in 2017.
Susan Porter had argued her beeps of support were protected by the First Amendment.
So, I do not see any reason why there cannot be restrictions on guns.
-
Two different Amendments, ma'am.
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
Two different Amendments, ma'am.
What does that mean? Is one amendment more "powerful" than another?
I still say that I doubt that there are any amendments that are "absolute". What I mean is that every amendment has some sort of restriction to it.
-
The Supreme Court had decided that:
"Bump stock" is legal; the ATF exceeded its power when it banned the device.The decision (PDF): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Thomas wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the minority. -
Idiots
-
The Supreme Court had decided that:
"Bump stock" is legal; the ATF exceeded its power when it banned the device.The decision (PDF): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Thomas wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the minority.@Axtremus said in SCOTUS to Decide on Legality of Bump Stock:
The Supreme Court had decided that:
"Bump stock" is legal; the ATF exceeded its power when it banned the device.The decision (PDF): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Thomas wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the minority.It's a simple ruling. All Congress has to do is pass a law. BATF can't make law up out of thin air
