Case law update from your friendly prosecutor

[()pen(arry]

Licensing, public safety, Good of the community... State terms that violate liberties.

And "for the children" and "if even one life" and "social contract".

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The State understands that most citizens value privileges and not rights.

In the words of H.L Mencken " What men value in this world is not rights but privileges".

I say the time has come to walk out of the shadow of states rights and into the sunlight of human rights. Hubert H. Humphrey

Licensing, public safety, Good of the community... State terms that violate liberties.

My .02

Regards.

CCJ

+1

And "for the children" and "if even one life" and "social contract".

+1

 

[countryclubjoe]

Problem is that the 2A means different things to different people in different states, at the discretion of the lower court judges.
This is not how any other fundamental constitutional rights work.

Also consider the following cases that have 2A implications that the Supreme Court refused to hear.

1- Williams v Maryland- (2010)
2- US v Masciandard- (2010)
3- Kachalsky v Westchester County ( 2012)
4- Woollard v Gallagher ( 2102)
5- Chardin v Police Commissioner of Boston (2013)
6/7- NRA v Mc Graw and NRA v Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
8- Drake v Jerejian ( 2013)

Why is SCOTUS dodging the 2nd?

My .02

Regards

CCJ

 

[Custodian]

My opinion?

...is that the constitution is fundamentally incomplete.

It places no penalty on those who infringe on people's rights.

This should have been remedied the moment the Alien and Seditions Act were allowed to pass. IMHO, that's when things probably went a little screwy and just spiraled out of control.

SCOTUS Justices, since they wanted to invent judicial review out of thin air thanks to Marbury v. Madison, they should be forced to hear constitutional cases. Period.

Literal readings of the constitution should have been made clear to justices as well as congress.

Anyone writing a law or upholding an unconstitutional method or law (this should include executive orders) or whatever, should be subject to a treason charge be you president/vice president, congressman, senator, bureaucrat, law enforcer, or justice. (this should include issues like 'reasonable restrictions', issues like obscenity, laws that are in clear violation of amendments/bill of rights, or federal powers trying to supercede or overreach into states powers)

I wonder how this one slipped under the radar when it was written? Maybe because they never figured it would ever get this bad, corrupt, or that the American people would ever stand up (or lie down as the case seems) for such treatment.

Bottom line? There ALWAYS should have been a penalty to pay...that of your life (shot, firing squad or hung), livelihood (barred from office, any office, forevermore), or your possessions (all your stuff? taken! Money in the bank, credit cards, jewelry, mink coats, gucci wallets, you get the idea) if you are elected to office and violate the rules of the land to enact law, clearly in violation of the rules of the land. You fleece one rich or well off politician or "de-rez" a sitting supreme court justice? And you'd find the laws would be pretty damned constitutional inside of a year. No punishment for the ruling class equals punishment for the serfs.

Until our rights are truly in stone, we'll never really be citizens.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Why is SCOTUS dodging the 2nd?

My .02

Regards

CCJ

Because it is clear and easily understood, yet they are statist so they don't want side on the proper side.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Problem is that the 2A means different things to different people in different states, at the discretion of the lower court judges.
This is not how any other fundamental constitutional rights work.

Also consider the following cases that have 2A implications that the Supreme Court refused to hear.

1- Williams v Maryland- (2010)
2- US v Masciandard- (2010)
3- Kachalsky v Westchester County ( 2012)
4- Woollard v Gallagher ( 2102)
5- Chardin v Police Commissioner of Boston (2013)
6/7- NRA v Mc Graw and NRA v Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
8- Drake v Jerejian ( 2013)

Why is SCOTUS dodging the 2nd?

My .02

Regards

CCJ

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Lysander Spooner