QuoVadisNation
keeping your angel alive
Definitely a fascinating opinion overall. The majority opinion itself is really educating.
SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Bugfatty300
- Start date
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Isn't that the truth. Simply reading Stevens dissent illustrates that, with the references to gun crimes and percentages of this and that. That crap doesn't matter when interpreting the constitution.
If one wants to combat the prolific existence of guns, take it up with the legislature. Hell, they can repeal the 2nd amendment now!!!
The dissenting parties are quite disgraceful with this one I think. Stevens and the others apparently couldn't write their dissention only questioning the validity of the private ownership of firearms within the Constitution. What a shame.
~Chris
sonorakitch,
I think you were reading Breyer's opinion, which I characterized to a co-worker as "the guns kill lots of people dissent." Stevens's opinion was more "you're reading it wrong, Nino." For which I thought he made a pretty good argument, even if you ultimately conclude that he's wrong. I see that he was uncomfortable with rendering the militia clause not-legally-operative, as other brilliant (and handsome) legal thinkers were.
Seriously, though, I think Stevens's opinion shows that it's not crazy to take the "collective right" approach. You should re-read it before you call it "disgraceful."
Cleo
I think you were reading Breyer's opinion, which I characterized to a co-worker as "the guns kill lots of people dissent." Stevens's opinion was more "you're reading it wrong, Nino." For which I thought he made a pretty good argument, even if you ultimately conclude that he's wrong. I see that he was uncomfortable with rendering the militia clause not-legally-operative, as other brilliant (and handsome) legal thinkers were.
Seriously, though, I think Stevens's opinion shows that it's not crazy to take the "collective right" approach. You should re-read it before you call it "disgraceful."
Cleo
I agree that such an interpretation is disgraceful, but what are you talking about with the Second Amendment being able to be repealed?
If you mean that another Amendment gets passed to repeal the Second Amendment, that is impossible with fewer than 2/3 of the voting populace supporting such a measure.
Notice I didn't mention felons. Under Texas law, one can be disqualified from 2nd Amendment rights merely by falling behind on student loan payments or child support.
Out of curiosity, have you read all the dissents? Stevens's dissent isn't based on that.
Cleo
That's why Scalia's majority opinion is also so horrific. If one wants an infringing licensing scheme to remain in place or an infringing outright ban on certain weapons or the ability to infringe certain individuals from possessing, let the Constitutional Amendment process take care of it. Don't read in exceptions to "shall not infringe."
No, I was saying that an interpretation of the Second Amendment which is shrouded in gun crime statistics would be disgraceful. I wasn't talking about a particular justice, only that if one of the justices interpreted it like that...
I'm not particularly interested in reading the opinions, though, considering how weak they seem in the long run.
How do you know they are weak if you don't bother to read them?
Eat your words, ally.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
sonorakitch,
I think you were reading Breyer's opinion, which I characterized to a co-worker as "the guns kill lots of people dissent." Stevens's opinion was more "you're reading it wrong, Nino." For which I thought he made a pretty good argument, even if you ultimately conclude that he's wrong. I see that he was uncomfortable with rendering the militia clause not-legally-operative, as other brilliant (and handsome) legal thinkers were.
Seriously, though, I think Stevens's opinion shows that it's not crazy to take the "collective right" approach. You should re-read it before you call it "disgraceful."
Cleo
Sorry...a typo for me. It most certainly was Breyer's opinion I was writing about--which indeed was disgraceful. His job is not to interpret the benefit or cost of any law, only whether the law is interpreted correctly based off the Constitution. However, I found Steven't arguments comparatively weak when aside Scalia's. To be honest, I thought Scalia's opinion was the most well thought out and sourced argument against misinterpretation of the Constitution I have ever read...and I have read quite a number of them.
Really, I though Scalia smoked Stevens on this one.
~Chris
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
I agree! That is the wonderful thing...now the argument for gun control must rest on that philosophy if the Brady folk were to obide by their "respect for the Constitution".
And it would never, ever work!
~Chris
OK, that I disagree with, same as if they were depriving people of the right to vote for being in debt.
If you're more persuaded by Scalia's argument than by Stevens's, that's fine. But he does write off the Militia Clause as a mere preamble, and he even notes himself that his interpretation of the Amendment (i.e., that the Militia Clause is not legally-operative) is unique in the Constitution. I guess I'm just a bit more skeptical of Scalia's historical investigations, having read a lot of commentary from actual historians criticizing his methodology. But I could really go either way on the issue, so I'm fine with the decision. I just think that Stevens's dissent at least was a reasonable argument, even if one thinks the weight of the evidence is on Scalia's side.
Well, Scalia always sounds like he's smoking someone, even when he's talking out of his ass.
Cleo
Well at least Breyer didn't to the full Scalia and say something like today's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.)
I agree with the narrow result that Scalia reached, but was critical with how he got there. That being said, I read every single Supreme Court case that comes out and very often, the side I disagree with makes some very good points and the side I agree with often reaches their decision in a way I think inferior. I suspect you might actually learn a thing or two from both the majority opinion and the dissents in this case.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
I found that portion of the argument to be rather intelligent actually. My interpretation consists of the prevailing right of the people over any other interpretation which may or may not be incorrect. To me, that is the real key with interpreting anything within the Constitution: that when in doubt of the original intent, the rights of the individual person should supercede any other interpreted right. Additionally, the opinion, I thought, did a rather nice job of drawing a parallel between the wording of the 2nd amendment and the 1st and 4th, rightfully insinuating the 2nd amendment is an individual right, just as the other 9 are in the bill of rights--especially in his discussions of the word "People" throughout the Constitution. Steven' counter on that I was a bit light.
I thought Steven's arguments were weaker in general, although much better than Breyer's. I still wonder how Steven can argue that "the people" immedietely refers back to the preamble and is referring to "the militia". Seems difficult for me to buy. More importantly though was the tit for tat in trying to decipher the historically accurate meaning of the first part of the last this and that written by them. What is more important with trying to decipher the Constitution is not really historical similarity but solid evidence. Without solid evidence that would allow no misunderstanding, the individual right should always prevail.
~Chris
sonorakitch,
That's a good idea, but it's definitely not what Scalia did. A lot of people would call that "judicial activism."
I think Stevens thinks "the people" in the Second Amendment refers to the Militia Clause because otherwise the Militia Clause has no legally-operative meaning. And it's a fundamental principle of statutory and constitutional interpretation that you should give meaning to everything the legislature / Framers wrote, if you can. He cited Marbury v. Madison for that, if I recall correctly. Personally, I'm a little uncomfortable with writing off the Militia Clause as "well, they were just explaining what they were going to do later on," when such a thing doesn't exist anywhere else in the document. Maybe they were -- Scalia certainly seems to think so -- but if they weren't, Stevens's interpretation makes sense.
Cleo
That's a good idea, but it's definitely not what Scalia did. A lot of people would call that "judicial activism."
I think Stevens thinks "the people" in the Second Amendment refers to the Militia Clause because otherwise the Militia Clause has no legally-operative meaning. And it's a fundamental principle of statutory and constitutional interpretation that you should give meaning to everything the legislature / Framers wrote, if you can. He cited Marbury v. Madison for that, if I recall correctly. Personally, I'm a little uncomfortable with writing off the Militia Clause as "well, they were just explaining what they were going to do later on," when such a thing doesn't exist anywhere else in the document. Maybe they were -- Scalia certainly seems to think so -- but if they weren't, Stevens's interpretation makes sense.
Cleo
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
Rush called it disgraceful. So of course they'll parrot that without having read it.
Given that Scalia just gave us the 'terrorists kill alot of people' dissent a few days ago, isn't this fitting and appropriate?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Scalia managed to lay it out very well.
Nice call
Scalia is easily the best writer on the Court, when he deigns to be. I think that he expects this case to have a very long shelf life, a was taking pains to be both citable and quoatable.
Do you think this will cover the issue for a generation or three? As I noted above, i think that was Scalia's intent.
To take issue with the dissents, I think much the contrary. Almost to a keystroke, these are arguments to ammend the Constitution, rather than interpret it. If I were a debate coach, I would be abrading them for getting so far off topic that their points could not be considered germane.
J
Similar threads
