Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (18474)	12/30/2002 4:30:39 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I DO know about the 9th circuit court I asked you about the opinions of the 9th circuit. That court's opinions are offensive to many people.. So what? The Court is not there to give people pleasure or to agree with the people. The Framers specifically designed the Federal and USSC as non-elected, appointed for life positions so that they would be free of public and political influence. That's what the Framers intended. You probably consider that obscure balderdash. This decision seems to cause great offense: the same justice who recently ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional... The insertion of "God" in the text was ruled unconstitutional. The insertion was a communist era addition to the Pledge of Allegiance. The Framers were emphatic about avoiding State sponsored religion. Whether the insertion of "God" constitutes State sponsoring is a reasonable question. Being Christian, I don't see it that way. But if I were Muslim or an athiest or Buddhist, I might see it differently. Perhaps a question to ask would be, does it make any difference whether we insert God or Buddha, or Aphrodite into the text. -- in short, everywhere else in the Constitution -- In the second there is an additional phrase which you gun nuts believe is extraneous fluff. It establishes the social compact between the government and the people. The purpose of the second has something to do with the militia, which is a group that consists of individuals. But it's the group that defines the collective right. That interpretation ignores history and the opinions of constitutional scholars nationwide Loaded phrase. The 9th circuit did cite historical text and practices as did US v. Miller in support of the opinion. Opinions of Constitutional scholars nationwide? You can find opinions of Constitutional scholars nationwide on either side of issue. The leading phase is factually wrong and misleading. How much more should I believe.... The following decisions strongly implied that an individual right was protected by the Second Amendment. Make the case that those opinons "strongly imply". If not. then I'll make that claim that US v. Miller "very, very strongly implies" that the 2nd is a collective right. jttmab