|
Post by span870 on Jun 26, 2015 18:52:31 GMT -5
This isn't about whether it's is right or wrong, tell me though how the 14th is so literal but the 2nd is open to interpretation???
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 26, 2015 18:57:08 GMT -5
Same way the ACA ruling went with perceived intent rather than actual wording.
The marriage thing was silly to even have to go through the courts. All men are created equal. Black. White. Yellow. Heterosexual. Homosexual.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jun 26, 2015 21:50:22 GMT -5
Span, the 2nd has already been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and in my simple mind they were wrong.
To me the 2nd is about a State's people having the right and ability to protect itself from a tyranny government. Our State constitution designates us as Indiana citizens as members the state militia. (Article 12)
The right of self preservation, to me, is outlined in the preamble.
To answer your question, it all depends on who you are talking to and how each fits into their agenda.
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Jun 30, 2015 9:16:04 GMT -5
Span, the 2nd has already been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and in my simple mind they were wrong. To me the 2nd is about a State's people having the right and ability to protect itself from a tyranny government. Our State constitution designates us as Indiana citizens as members the state militia. (Article 12) The right of self preservation, to me, is outlined in the preamble. To answer your question, it all depends on who you are talking to and how each fits into their agenda. The meaning of the Second Amendment has never been ambiguous to me, "The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is very clearly worded, and the intent of the Framers was clearly spelled out.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jun 30, 2015 11:25:35 GMT -5
Yep, for a State militia.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 30, 2015 19:19:23 GMT -5
All right, Now it's time for all you happy little "gay rights" activists to start forcing churches to marry you. Mosques first please!!!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 30, 2015 21:12:22 GMT -5
Yep, for a State militia. Those comas are pretty significant.....
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 30, 2015 21:13:46 GMT -5
What the justices did with the ACA ruling is disturbing. Going with intent instead of plainly written language is not their job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 21:27:12 GMT -5
Here is where it gets interesting. The first time a minister is "forced" to administer a gay wedding, it will be, guess who, to come to the church's defense??? That's right, the ACLU. They have already promised to do so. Ironic, no?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 30, 2015 21:41:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jun 30, 2015 21:45:57 GMT -5
Yep, for a State militia. Those comas are pretty significant..... Yes. That is why article 12 in the Indiana Constitution is so important. I've seen lots of talk that this ruling opens the door to LTCH resiprocity (sp?). Now if that is the case, would it not also open up HRP use for deer hunting. Kentucky allows it so indiana cannot deny what another state allows. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jun 30, 2015 22:38:59 GMT -5
Justices Scalia and Thomas have both written in the past that the Court should defer to congressional intent, as they should, unless it is a constitutional violation. It is not their job to overrule Congress based on language errors, This case was not about constitutionality, it was about an editing oversight. Consider the 2nd Amendment - the language structure is clumsy and ambiguous, but the intent is clear is it not? What if the Court said never mind what the framers intended, we are going by the sentence structure, so only militias can have guns??
The ACA needs to be killed by Congressional action, the way it was created. By taking this case to the Supreme Court and losing, the fools actually strengthened it, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 23:29:06 GMT -5
Pretty much the only way to overturn a SCOTUS ruling is with another SCOTUS ruling.
|
|