- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Heller does. Go read it.The Second Amendment says NONE of that.
Heller does. Go read it.The Second Amendment says NONE of that.
Your claim that he is wrong is pretty strong evidence that he is right. I have yet to see a post of yours that is correct as to the 2A
The Second Amendment says NONE of that.
Heller actualy gives all those pre-Heller examples. You really should go read Heller start to finish.Please provide verifiable of this claim that the Amendment was so divided and recognized as those two distinct parts before Heller and the right wing drum beating that set it up.
Heller does. Go read it.
Heller actualy gives all those pre-Heller examples. You really should go read Heller start to finish.
Heller was one decision in very recent years which was decided by a single vote on a Court ruled by ideology. That does not make it consistent with the Constitution and you know darn well it does not.
true, but the Supreme Court has.
Oh but I have and I see nothing in history which sets up two distinct parts of the Amendment until the right wing started their crusade climaxing in Heller.
But feel free to show me otherwise with verifiable evidence rather than your own opinion of Heller.
And you yourself has said the Supreme Court is wrong on many things and you have called them all sort of vile names.... but all of the sudden now you prostrate yourself before them because of Heller.
all that shows is that there are four dishonest liberals on the court
Stevens dissent will go down as one of the most pathetic in recent memory .
Heller gives the entire heraldry behind itself.Heller was one decision in very recent years which was decided by a single vote on a Court ruled by ideology. That does not make it consistent with the Constitution and you know darn well it does not.
nope, but they sort of got it right
totally right would have been striking down all federal gun control laws on 10th amendment grounds
Heller gives the entire heraldry behind itself.
You need to just accept Heller as the law of the land and move forward.
It shows that those four people
1 - can read the entire Amendment
2- can understand 220 years of American history
3 - and are not sycophants and toadies of the gun lobby and the extreme right wing.
No - what is needed is making sure it is overturned ASAP when Scalia is no longer there. Which will happen because Heller was such a radical departure from 220 years of American jurisprudence.
Sure, overturn Heller with the same act that abolishes all federal gun control of every kind; no more NICS; no more ATF.No - what is needed is making sure it is overturned ASAP when Scalia is no longer there. Which will happen because Heller was such a radical departure from 220 years of American jurisprudence.
I guess it shows you that even right wingers on the Court will not place themselves as far out on that right wing limb as you seem willing to do with your sacred 10th Amendment.
That should tell you something.
it should tell you that your rants about those 5 Justices are without merit.
but anyone who believes the the Commerce Clause actually was intended by the founders or can HONESTLY be read to grant all the powers FDR claimed it did is completely out to lunch
note that the anti gun justices dance around the tenth amendment issue-none of them want to try to justify the fiction FDR engaged in
Sure, overturn Heller with the same act that abolishes all federal gun control of every kind; no more NICS; no more ATF.
You attacking FDR at every opportunity is a hollow substitute for verifiable evidence supporting your claims - none of which you have ever provided.
The Heller decision probably guaranteed the empty suit's election. If the SC had ruled as the Dems want, gun bans would have been a main issue in 2008 and that would have hurt Obola
Republican candidates and policies and general public image set up Obama's election win.
why don't you make an argument for why the language of the commerce clause was INTENDED to reach retail sales or perhaps Wickard and the wheat
Heller took away the justifiable concern that Obola was another gun banning thug. Lots of union guys end up voting for Obola because they didn't worry about gun bans