Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[East_TN_Patriot]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

[Photoguy67]

This is nothing new, they have been regulating them since 1934.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So I guess that's good enough to continue the trend?

Impressive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Photoguy67]

So because I point out something, I support it? I am not sure I follow your logic.

[Guest BungieCord]

We need a new Constitutional amendment allowing the regulation of SCOTUS justices. This lifetime tenure nonsense has GOT TO GO.

[tnhawk]

We need a new Constitutional amendment allowing the regulation of SCOTUS justices. This lifetime tenure nonsense has GOT TO GO.

If a change needs to be made, a better method of selecting justices should be a part of the change.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I don't know how we could come up with a better way. Do we want them elected? Do we want them appointed by the POTUS and subject to dismissal at the whim of the POTUS? The idea was to free the Justices from the influence of politics and the threat of losing their job for making a ruling that wasn't politically popular or ran counter to the parties in power. Recommended by the POTUS and approved by the Senate is really the best way to go in my opinion. This is perhaps the most important reason why people need to make informed decisions about who they vote for.

[gun sane]

Anybody elected or appointed to the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government should be out after six years. That's long enough to serve the country....then they should go get a real job.

[jcoosi]

Anybody elected or appointed to the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government should be out after six years. That's long enough to serve the country....then they should go get a real job.

And they shouldnt still get their salaries for the rest of their lifetime either.

[Jonnin]

Having them appointed for life was a slick move. Congress and the president have a rapid turnover. If somehow there was a clean sweep and both congress and president were dominated by one party, well their watchdog (the SC) can still oppose them. If the final branch was also reset, all three branches could align to cause some serious harm. Even as we speak, the conservatives in place (even when they mess up, like health care) are left over from reagan's appointments and from W's picks.

I dunno. I do not like a lot of the cour'ts decisions, but given the choices we have had for congress, president, etc for the past decade, I fear who might replace them.

I am thinking that a 6 year term would give us a SCOTUS fulla czars, an obama president, and a liberal congress as a 2013 amerika. Hopefully I am wrong, but that would be a distinct possibility. As it stands, if elected, obama will get 1 or 2 more court picks anyway.... not good.

[leroy]

I'm kinda with Photoguy on this one, only i think the "regulation" thing goes back a lot further. It goes to the post civil war "Reconstruction" era. Read the text of tennessee state law for details. One of our scholars here on our very forum pointed this out in several excellent posts several years ago during a discussion of "gun control" laws. Scalia said nothing new and changed nothing. He did sober lots of folks up though.

The fact is that there is a pernicious government tendency to regulate behavior of its citizens. The USA is no exception. Remember the speech of the great sheriff in "Oh Brother, Where art Thou" in the hangin scene when Everette protested about being pardoned, saying they shouldnt be hanged. He famously said: "....The law is a human institution..." ... and, as such, is subject to the effects of corrupt characters who use government and bend laws to facilitate personal agendas. Many in government view the citizens as "rabble" to be governed by a "governing elite". You need to understand that the judicial branch of government is the "elite" of the "governing elite". Thats exactly why elections matter. Whoever sits at the top appoints folks like Scalia and Roberts for life.

In my view, it matters far more as to who sits in the presidency and legislature. If ya dont have trash like Barak Nobama, Frank Lautenberg, Chuck Schumer, and Michael Bloomberg sitting in elected office; ya dont have the problem of oppressive anti gun laws being put forward to control the "rabble" who might want to defend themselves against nuts and thugs.

The real enemy in all this governmental thing aint the judicial branch; its the legislative branch and the big city machine polititians who pass out favors and have, from the beginning of the machine politics era in this country have acted like kings in certain portions of this country (...read that big cities like New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, etc....). Take a look at the pronouncements of the great Rahm Emanuel in Chicago and whoever the idiot is who is the current mayor of Boston RE: the chick fila thing and you can see what im sayin.

I can tolerate the Scalias and his buddies in the long black robes. I cant tolerate the Nobamas, Shumers, Lautenbergs, and the other trash that wants to make us serfs. The problem aint the supreme court or its appointment and tenure process. It's trash like the afore listed excrement that think you and i are serfs and can be pushed around at the whim and will of a "governing elite". They are, in fact, the enemy and need to be defeated politically. If we dont, the country wil be overrun with this trash and wont be fit to live in. In my opinion, its frighteningly close to that point now. The fact that these clowns have the power they have now should sober everyone up who loves liberty and believes in the founding principles of this country.

Remember, there is an election soon. Vote early and often.

leroy

PS --- By the way, thanks ETP for posting this. It is important.

Edited July 30, 2012 by leroy

[Commando68]

Scalia knows better. He knows the 27 words in the 2nd amendment as defined by Noahs Dictionary exclusively forbids the scum at the fedgov from passing any law that infringes on our unalienalbe right to bear arms. The other slime that he crawls around with influenced him in some way.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So because I point out something, I support it? I am not sure I follow your logic.

I didn't accuse you of anything. It did sound like you brushed the notion off and expected to see more, which to me

is similar to saying "Oh well". Ahh, nevermind. I'll admit, sometimes my expectations should be kept to myself.

My apologies offered.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know how we could come up with a better way. Do we want them elected? Do we want them appointed by the POTUS and subject to dismissal at the whim of the POTUS? The idea was to free the Justices from the influence of politics and the threat of losing their job for making a ruling that wasn't politically popular or ran counter to the parties in power. Recommended by the POTUS and approved by the Senate is really the best way to go in my opinion. This is perhaps the most important reason why people need to make informed decisions about who they vote for.

I think so, too. Elections have consequences. Votes by the politicians are similar to the votes citizens make.

Getting the right politician in office is sometimes difficult. If we don't get it right, we get trampled on.

[RobertNashville]

We need a new Constitutional amendment allowing the regulation of SCOTUS justices. This lifetime tenure nonsense has GOT TO GO.

Actually, all we really need is to return the power of the Supreme Court to the level it was intended to have based on the Constitution and the founders.

Most people believe, incorrectly (because that's what they've been taught by people who also didn't know), that the three branches of government were supposed to be equal in power and that the Supreme Court renders decisions that MUST be obeyed. In actuality, the power was not supposed to be equal, Congress holds the most, the executive branch second and and the Supreme Court was and technically still is limited to render an "opinion". Much of the power of the executive branch cam about under Wilson and FDR (which of course was are start down the road of socialism and centralized power).

Of course, just like we used to have senators appointed by the states they represented rather than elected, I doubt we'll ever return to what the founders actually intended...we've simply strayed too far.

As to Scalia's statement; he's probably right; at least to a point.

I don't believe the 2A intended the average citizen to have nuclear weapons, or other extraordinary weapons (bio-weapons, etc.) but should be able to own any weapon that our troops would routinely be issued and carry, fully automatic or not. Same thing if Star Trek phasers or Star War's light sabers should those ever get issued to troops; the 2A isn't about "firearms"; it's about "arms".

Just my $0.02 of course based on my currently understanding of the Constitution - I've been know to change my opinion as I learn more.

Edited July 30, 2012 by RobertNashville

[leroy]

Robert has made several good points RE: the job of the courts and the courts role. The three branches of government were never intended to be "equal". There have been tiffs between the court and the executive branch. The one that comes to mind is the "indian removal act" (...the trail of tears...). Check out what Andrew Jackson said here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia ..

The bottom line is that the legislature drafts and makes laws (...they can also nullify and change laws; and often do....), the executive branch enforces laws (...sometimes, and ignores them others..Ala Jackson and Nobama....). The supreme court gives opinions on laws.

Since we are supposidely a "...nation of laws..."; the thought is that they (...the decisions of the court plus the laws duly passed by congress...) should be enforced when the opinions (...and laws...) are handed down. Sometimes they are not; ala Nobama on border enforcement and defense of marriage.

Robert is also right on the issue of Roosevelt "packing the court" and elevating it to a "co-equal" branch of government. It was done for political reasons to advance the socialist agenda her in the good ole USA. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers considered the court the "weakest arm of government.". They were right. Roosevelt simply perverted and "jilflirted" the system to get his way.

Remember, in our system, the government derives its power to govern from the consent of the governed. The reason that the politicos wont touch the gun issue today is that most folks believe (...and rightly so...) that the second amendment means what it says, and that citizens have an inherrent right to self defense. Charles Krauthammer masterfully pointed this out the other day in the Fox All-Star panel discussion.

leroy

Edited July 30, 2012 by leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wise observations from both of you. A lot of the time our consent to the governing has been stretched

out of proportion from its intent.

If the legislators in the political arm of government were further constrained to the constitutionality of the

stuff they pass on to us, we would have a less complicated set of laws to be that nation of. The lack of that

constraint is what helps kill our republic.

[Steelharp]

Having them appointed for life was a slick move. Congress and the president have a rapid turnover.

Not rapid enough.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Supposedly, for part of Rome's history the Senate was not irrelevant. Then there were long eras changing emperors more often than underwear but it didn't matter because none were worthy.

To discourage thievery, a common design in business-- The person who requisitions spending can't write checks. The person who writes checks can't sign them. And the person who signs checks can't write them. Separation of power. Tends to discourage individual theft but not cooperative theft. Presumably cooperative theft is more difficult but seems easily enough accomplished. I'll approve your public works deficit spending if you'll approve my military deficit spending.

Some have analyzed a government system in terms of servo systems, negative feedback control systems. You want "as perfect tracking possible". Neither understeer nor oversteer nor in worst case parasitic oscillations which can either wreck the machine or eventually latch it up at one extreme of travel. Economic systems can be viewed thru the same lens. The time constants and damping are important considerations in avoiding understeer, oversteer, or oscillations leading to breakdown or lock-up.

Time constants in our gov design include terms of office for senate, house, president, supreme court. The chosen values have kept the mechanism from catastrophic failure so far, but maybe they could be better-tweaked. Presidential term-limits seemed a pretty good tweak, after people saw a "near lock-up" 1933-1945. Luckily averted by the ultimate time constant of the human life-span. Roosevelt only lived 63 years. What if Roosevelt had lived as long as Robert Byrd?

Given the pee-poor performance of second terms, perhaps a reduction of presidential term-limit to 4 years would be an improvement, along with congressional time limits. Perhaps even a supreme court time limit. Something entirely arbitrary but long. Maybe a limit of 20 years in office? Or a mandatory retirement age? A mandatory retirement age in congress might not be completely stupid. For grins, count our number of congresscritters above the age of 65. A congressional retirement age of 70 would trim significant deadwood including some rather dangerous old geezers.

But the reason pure democracies tend toward instability has to do with time constants too short. The system needs to be able to adapt to conditions, but neither too quickly nor too slowly.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They had people like Montesquieu to give the founders directions on separation of powers back then.

Did a pretty good job, but weasels found their way through the mess and raped all that good work.