Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to SportTrac.Org
Off Topic Discussion
"Tolerant" NYC Liberals React to McCain Supporters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Rogers" data-source="post: 819208" data-attributes="member: 60724"><p>Further evidence that our rights don't come singularly and directly from words of the Constitution, but also, and often more so from judicial interpretation and rulings...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, just look at the landmark DC handgun ban case in which Scalia gave the majority opinion (in a 5-4 decision showing even more evidence that the interpretation varies widely):</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The fact is that it is Scalia's <strong>opinion </strong>that the preface "militia" clause puts no limits on the second (bear arms) clause. That's why they call it the "majority opinion." It is just that. Still that preface clause was there for a reason, at one time. Now it has a different meaning and an unclear intent. I'm okay with that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The founding fathers were smart people. They put things into the Constitution that they felt were needed, not only for those times, but for all times. However, they knew they didn't have all the answers, and they knew that times would change. That is why they created a system that allowed for changes (amendments), and for steering through rulings.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All I am trying to say is this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When people say:</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> "There is no such right described in the Constitution!", </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then I submit that such a statement is meaningless as the rights we enjoy don't singularly come from the Constitution.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>TJR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thomas Rogers, post: 819208, member: 60724"] Further evidence that our rights don't come singularly and directly from words of the Constitution, but also, and often more so from judicial interpretation and rulings... Again, just look at the landmark DC handgun ban case in which Scalia gave the majority opinion (in a 5-4 decision showing even more evidence that the interpretation varies widely): The fact is that it is Scalia's [b]opinion [/b]that the preface "militia" clause puts no limits on the second (bear arms) clause. That's why they call it the "majority opinion." It is just that. Still that preface clause was there for a reason, at one time. Now it has a different meaning and an unclear intent. I'm okay with that. The founding fathers were smart people. They put things into the Constitution that they felt were needed, not only for those times, but for all times. However, they knew they didn't have all the answers, and they knew that times would change. That is why they created a system that allowed for changes (amendments), and for steering through rulings. All I am trying to say is this: When people say: "There is no such right described in the Constitution!", Then I submit that such a statement is meaningless as the rights we enjoy don't singularly come from the Constitution. TJR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Welcome to SportTrac.Org
Off Topic Discussion
"Tolerant" NYC Liberals React to McCain Supporters
Top