Mn01r6 wrote:jshuberg wrote:The history, meaning and intent of the 2A is well known and understood. He knows this. He simply disagrees with it, and would use any and every legal maneuvering to pervert the right to what he deems acceptable. Quite simply, he is a tyrant. And he should live the rest of his life locked in a cage because of it.
1) it wasn't (in the law) until Heller and McDonald...one more anti on the court and it would be a very different world.
2) slow your roll on locking up those you disagree with there Pol Pot.
Justice Stevens is a political adversary and we don't jail people we disagree with in this country. Just be happy he retired before he could do any more damage.
With respect, you're wrong here. It does not require a supreme court ruling to validate a constitutional right. Yes, a more corrupt supreme court may have ruled the other way. They would have been wrong, and the court has reversed itself from time to time for being wrong.
The meaning of the 2A is not something that requires a judicial analysis to understand. It was written in the plain language of the day specifically so that the common man would understand that his government recognizes and protects his right. A couple hundred years later, in a very different cultural context, that language isn't as plain as it was when it was penned. Nevertheless, we can very easily determine what the intent and scope of the 2A was. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of documented historical fact. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on this right. There was no argument over what the right is. The entire debate was centered on the language, and how best to simplify it down to it's simplest form, and make it understandable to the people of the day. We have both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that go into the understanding of the right. Papers and letters written by those who ratified it who explain in greater detail the reasoning, as well as Madison's notes of the ratification process of the 2A. What the right is and what it means is quite simply a matter of historical fact, and no honest individual familiar with constitutional history can claim otherwise.
When Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion in Heller, a significant portion of his argument was legislative in nature, rather than judicial. Rather than looking at the history and intent of the legislature that authored the amendment, or the 3/4 of the state legislatures that ratified it, he argued that guns are dangerous, and need to be regulated, blah blah blah. When his argument didn't prevail, it was only *then* that he brought up a constitutional amendment to *change* his personal opinion of what the 2A *should* be (as opposed to what it actually is). This is plain evidence that he wished to change the meaning of the 2A by judicial ruling first, and only when that failed did he suggest a legislative "fix" to get the right in line with his political beliefs.
In other words, Stevens knowingly tried to change the meaning and application of a constitutional right from the bench to fit his personal beliefs. This is not the role of the judiciary, and his attempt to thwart the intent of the legislatures that ratified the 2A is nothing less than an assault on the constitution itself. He is and was in violation of his oath, and in a just world should suffer the full penalty of law for doing so.
The legislature can change existing law. They can author or modify constitutional amendments. That is their role. When the judiciary presumes to grab the power from the legislature, and presume to write or change the law from the bench, they are exceeding their constitutional authority, and deny the people their legislative representation in government. When judges do this they become criminals, should suffer public disgrace, and spend the rest of their lives in a cage.
