- Joined
- Oct 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 1,558
- Location
- Upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
My side? I gues that would include Chief Justice John Jay who discussed the Amendment in 1791 in an opinion in Jones v. Walker saying
It certainly does not include Jay. As a Federalist he certainly would never examine a provision in a bill of rights to determine the scope of an original, pre-existing, fundamental right.
Please provide a full citation and a link to his opinion in Jones v. Walker, because you can not be trusted to provide an honest quotation or synopsis of any legal statement. What you have provided continues with that lack of honesty. You purport Jay to have said about the 2nd Amendment:
"A preamble cannot annul enacting clauses; but when it envinces the intention of the legislature and the design of t he act, it enables us, in cases of two constructions, to adopt the one most consonant to their intention and design."
You are the one who holds an opinion in opposition to this statement.
You are the one who demands the declaratory clause annul the restrictive clause.
You are the one who over read the declaratory clause which can only be said to tell us why the right is being protected (not why or how it exists).
You are the one who takes the declaratory clause's statement about the object of the Amendment and annul the intention of the "enacting clause", the clause that actually has legal operation.
You are the one who misapplies this instruction on when to use a preamble to interpret a provision because the preamble is only to be refered to if there is ambiguity or conflict, "in cases of two constructions", in what the restrictive clause demands the government NOT do. There is no ambiguity in the completely negative law 2nd Amendment except for that which was introduced a century after its ratification.
In fact, linguists have called the first clause an "ablative absolute" and it provides "the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is valid." That comes from "The Second Amendment: Our Latinate Constitution from the University of Texas Linguisics Research Center, December 2012.
But the Court has said again and again that the right to arms is not granted or created or established by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution (or an entity or structure that IS created by the Constitution (i.e., the organized militia) for its existence. Your position is held in opposition to that foundational principle and the Court's multiple and longstanding unequivocal holdings affirming that principle and can never, ever be reconciled with it (which is why you must ignore it).
Lets look at what Scalia says about that from Heller.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.
The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years.
Are you having a breakdown or some other crisis in your cognition? You are wrong on how you are applying the citations; the citations only refer to the part that is in quotation marks. Scalia's statement that, The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” is what is represented in the cited works.
Additionally, I'm in shock that you repeat your error stating that the Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English was filed in support of Heller -- IT WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF DC-- thus the "upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing" is arguing your side of the issue.
But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites :
Interesting that the very brief cited by Scalia comes to the opposite conclusion as Heller did. Makes one wonder why Scalia referenced it all.
Well, again, the citation is to page 3 of the brief and on page 3 we find the Professors stating that, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Scalia does not quote or draw from any other part of the Professor's brief which isn't surprising because it argues a theory thoroughly rejected by the Court . . .
Willie Orwontee said:That you defend any gun control law by citing the 2nd Amendment's declaratory, "militia" clause is the death-knell for your argument. It really doesn't matter if you can claim that you believe -some- laws to be unconstitutional, that you feel -any- are constitutional, by way of Congress' power to regulate the militia, is irreconcilably anti-constitutional and render any ancillary opinion invalid.
How so? Congress established the right as part of military service in the militia and the Congress has rights over the militia. Whats the problem?
And that you would rebut my statement by saying "Congress established the right" is just hilarious.
That year was 2007. Where were those terms... or concepts ... or terminology ... or descriptions before that time?
Well, going by what the lower court says in Parker, I'm going to say that the "prefatory" / "operative" terminology has its origin in the District of Columbia's arguments:
22. The District of Columbia argues that the prefatory clause declares the Amendment's only purpose—to shield the state militias from federal encroachment—and that the operative clause, even when read in isolation, speaks solely to military affairs and guarantees a civic, rather than an individual, right.
So again, please stop with the incorrect statement that the "prefatory" / "operative" terminology is something Scalia introduced to the world in Heller . . . It came from your side.
Why the hostility? Did you take it personally or a direct attack by me when I said it was right wing politics which produced the Heller decision? You certainly seem to.
I just find your lies and misrepresentations and continuous repeating of defunct theories, reprehensible and intolerable. You are an enemy of the Constituion and as such my verbal hostility should be expected and considered the minimum level of resistance to your anti-constitutional positions.