Politics

[GoldenDome]

In a militia, the individuals provide their own arms NOT the government. Hence, the right of the people to bear arms.

As it is written, there is plenty of Judiciary ambiguity, of which the SCOTUS interpreted just as they did with the Obamacare ruling. If you read the amendment as written, it clearly reads as "a well regulated militia" meaning a group of people who come together to fight against the general army. Clearly individuals are not part of a militia and even then, it could be that the state are to regulate and provide weaponry for the state militia against the federal government. Of course, that is all up to interpretation, which was the point of my whole argument.

 

[IrishLax]

SCOTUS just struck down all same sex marriage bans nationwide 5-4. Said any restriction on who can marry who violates the Constitution.

 

[Wild Bill]

Did Alito give his decent wearing a powdered wig, white knee high socks, belt buckle shoes, britches and a ruffled shirt? Gotta keep it real right?

No, he was wearing the usual. He looked dissent, though.

 

[GoIrish41]

SCOTUS just struck down all same sex marriage bans nationwide 5-4. Said any restriction on who can marry who violates the Constitution.

Great news!

 

[IrishLax]

I think the United States is now the second western nation (behind Ireland) to legalize same sex marriage as a country.

But please Social Justice Warriors, tell me again how awful and backwards the United States is with everything is with no progress and the terrible burdens of micro aggressions.

I wish people would take a step back sometimes and appreciate that even if it takes time things are pretty much always trending in a good direction.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

In a militia, the individuals provide their own arms NOT the government. Hence, the right of the people to bear arms.

Let me phrase it differently...how do you interpret "well regulated militia"?

 

[GoIrish41]

I think the United States is now the second western nation (behind Ireland) to legalize same sex marriage as a country.

But please Social Justice Warriors, tell me again how awful and backwards the United States is with everything is with no progress and the terrible burdens of micro aggressions.

I wish people would take a step back sometimes and appreciate that even if it takes time things are pretty much always trending in a good direction.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

 

[wizards8507]

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

The arc of the political universe is long, but it bends towards tyranny.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The arc of the political universe is long, but it bends towards tyranny.

In what way does this ruling indicate tyranny? This is an expansion of rights, not a limitation of rights. Churches may still ban marriages in their institutions.

 

[IrishinSyria]

In a militia, the individuals provide their own arms NOT the government. Hence, the right of the people to bear arms.

This is not necessarily historically accurate. After all, the Battle of Lexington and Concord doesn't make much sense if the militia's arms were all privately possessed: the Brits were attempting to march on an arms depot.

 

[wizards8507]

In what way does this ruling indicate tyranny? This is an expansion of rights, not a limitation of rights. Churches may still ban marriages in their institutions.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. They can't say "you can," "you can't," "you shall," "you shall not," "you must recognize," or anything of the sort.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. They can't say "you can," "you can't," "you shall," "you shall not," "you must recognize," or anything of the sort.

Yup. Same with education.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think the United States is now the second western nation (behind Ireland) to legalize same sex marriage as a country.

But please Social Justice Warriors, tell me again how awful and backwards the United States is with everything is with no progress and the terrible burdens of micro aggressions.

I wish people would take a step back sometimes and appreciate that even if it takes time things are pretty much always trending in a good direction.

Don't forget institutional racism.

 

[Emcee77]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

======

So if SCOTUS were to take this little nugget literally and ignore intent, it would say that a well regulated militia would have the right to bear arms, not individuals. Bunch of fuckin hypocrisy.

Here is your well regulated militia. Enjoy attacking this one.

I don't want to start a pointless, ideological argument, but I want to point that that's a perfectly reasonable argument and many serious scholars have made it. I don't see the "hypocrisy."

I've studied the Second Amendment pretty extensively (had to for a law school class) and there are persuasive historical arguments to support both sides of the individual rights/militia rights debate. Neither position is frivolous, imo.

If you are saying the language is clear on its face, that's just patently false. The language of the Second Amendment is famously opaque.

 

[pkt77242]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. They can't say "you can," "you can't," "you shall," "you shall not," "you must recognize," or anything of the sort.

So you agree that DOMA was unconstitutional then?

Also the "Federal Government" didn't say any of that. The U.S. Supreme Court said the bans violate the Constitution which is within their power.

On phone so it is hard to type.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The arc of the political universe is long, but it bends towards tyranny.

Wut

 

[BGIF]

Let me phrase it differently...how do you interpret "well regulated militia"?

As a former soldier and a gunowner since I was 5, a well regulated militia TODAY is each state's National Guard. In the era when the Constitution was written, it was you, me, and every able bodied male over 14 in the valley.


The Second Amendment was penned to deal with the King's Army of Occupation (The Government) confiscating individual arms. And if I recall correctly the first 10 amendments, The Bill of Rights, are supposed to be Individual Rights which may be SCOTUS rationale.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Somewhere NDgradstudent is sobbing in a corner with a bible in one hand and genetics textbook in the other.

 

[pkt77242]

I think the United States is now the second western nation (behind Ireland) to legalize same sex marriage as a country.

But please Social Justice Warriors, tell me again how awful and backwards the United States is with everything is with no progress and the terrible burdens of micro aggressions.

I wish people would take a step back sometimes and appreciate that even if it takes time things are pretty much always trending in a good direction.

I am pretty sure that their are more. Wikipedia lists 18 countries that have legalized gay marriage and many are western. Color me confused. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Same-sex_marriage

 

[IrishJayhawk]

As a former soldier and a gunowner since I was 5, a well regulated militia TODAY is each state's National Guard. In the era when the Constitution was written, it was you, me, and every able bodied male over 14 in the valley.


The Second Amendment was penned to deal with the King's Army of Occupation (The Government) confiscating individual arms. And if I recall correctly the first 10 amendments, The Bill of Rights, are supposed to be Individual Rights which may be SCOTUS rationale.

That's "militia" to me. But what about "well regulated"? Who's regulating it?

 

[phgreek]

That's an interesting thought. I've generally thought exactly the opposite. To read the law, the debate surrounding the law, and the implementation of the law as including subsidies ONLY through the state exchanges takes a huge and disingenuous leap.

As Toobin writes in the article from above:


They wanted to kill it on political grounds and were looking for ways to do so.

EDIT:
He wrote a follow-up article today.

Doom for a Cynical Assault on Obamacare - The New Yorker



Maybe my favorite line:

Motivations of the people attacking it doesn't change the intent of the law as written. This shows that "politicals" are the only ones with the means (war chest) to CREATE and FIGHT this kind of foolishness.

In my opinion, it is not Justice Robert's job to fuss over some of the things he was concerned with...which ultimately "allowed" him to get to his decision...Kennedy is Kennedy...he'll always buck convention for the sake of it.

Our Federal government needs to listen to a Brian Kelly Speech wherein he talks about the criticality of doing your job...Count on Me! The basis of that thought is, when you do things outside your job, 1) you aren't doing your job with all your resources; 2) we can't see and fix the problems someone else is having, and we are all weaker. It is sometimes worth the pain of letting something fail to know where we are, and what we need to fix. We fail over and over at that very basic organizational tenant...had hoped the supreme court would be doing less of that. SMH.

BTW: I am not one who is relieved with this decision because the Jackass Republicans weren't "ready". Only a complete and total idiot would tear down a house w/o having something to go to. They were standing there watching the wrecking ball swing without more than some ideas about what they would do...complete failures and wastes of flesh. This completely convinced me government, outside DoD, cannot implement or fix anything of reasonable complexity...JUST. CAN'T.

 

[Emcee77]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. They can't say "you can," "you can't," "you shall," "you shall not," "you must recognize," or anything of the sort.

Don't be ridiculous. The constitutional gay marriage debate is over the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Tenth.

 

[Bluto]

I think the United States is now the second western nation (behind Ireland) to legalize same sex marriage as a country.

But please Social Justice Warriors, tell me again how awful and backwards the United States is with everything is with no progress and the terrible burdens of micro aggressions.

I wish people would take a step back sometimes and appreciate that even if it takes time things are pretty much always trending in a good direction.

I agree in general in terms of social issues. I think the next "big issue" is going to be about class and will cut across all racial, gender and sexual identies. Will be interesting how that plays out.

 

[GoldenDome]

I don't want to start a pointless, ideological argument, but I want to point that that's a perfectly reasonable argument and many serious scholars have made it. I don't see the "hypocrisy."

I've studied the Second Amendment pretty extensively (had to for a law school class) and there are persuasive historical arguments to support both sides of the individual rights/militia rights debate. Neither position is frivolous, imo.

If you are saying the language is clear on its face, that's just patently false. The language of the Second Amendment is famously opaque.

Actually I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Alito. My argument was on the premise of judiciary ambiguity in both 2nd amendment and the ruling on Obamacare.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Don't be ridiculous. The constitutional gay marriage debate is over the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Tenth.

^This

 

[wizards8507]

So you agree that DOMA was unconstitutional then?

Yes.

 

[GoldenDome]

The arc of the political universe is long, but it bends towards tyranny.

So let me get this straight, you want to take away healthcare to poor people who can't afford it and take away equal rights as well and you say these rulings are a tyranny?

I see.

 

[Emcee77]

Actually I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Alito. My argument was on the premise of judiciary ambiguity in both 2nd amendment and the ruling on Obamacare.

Oh, sorry, I see your point now. It may not be a perfect analogy but you do have a point. My bad for reading out of context.

 

[Emcee77]

OMG Scalia's dissent ...

He is in rare form. And that is saying something, for him.

 

[wizards8507]

So let me get this straight, you want to take away healthcare to poor people who can't afford it and take away equal rights as well and you say these rulings are a tyranny?

I see.

Nobody has a "right" to healthcare because one person's rights cannot impose a burden on those of another. Anyone can seek treatment, but a doctor has the right to decline a patient and an insurance provider has the right to decline coverage. Free markets include the right to not participate in those markets if you don't want to.

Nobody has a "right" to state-sanctioned marriage, either. Not straight people, gay people, or any kind of Caitlyn Jenner halvsie. A federal ban on gay marriage (or "traditional marriage" for that matter) would be just as out-of-bounds as a federal endorsement thereof.