Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote [Justice Antonin] Scalia, a hunter. Reuters
I agree with the ruling, however, the Constitution does not grant us the right, it enumerates that right. It is a natural law that man is able to defend him or her self. Chuck Mallory
If D.C. street thugs are pleased by anything, it's probably the fact that five of the justices -- a slim majority, but that's all it takes to win -- have come around to seeing things their way. Colbert I. King
What I find very much amusing is that the second dissent in part relies upon laws passed in 18th century America. I mean, I thought the Consitution was an evolving document, and we couldnt be expected to live our lives according to the dictates of 18th century life. But, lo and behold, the dissention references a law pertaining to the storage of gunpowder, something not necessary for the use of fire-arms today, as proof of the governments ability to limit the second amendment right. Intriguing. VolMagic
It's good. If Fat Tony Scalia comes anywhere near your home, shoot the motherf*cker. David Ehrenstein
But I must first pass along this rather brilliant observation from professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, who wonders why none of the dissenters cautioned the majority that today's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.) Dahlia Lithwick
Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is an important right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly. John McCain
Were all originalists now. One of the most extraordinary things about
this case is that it presented, for the first time in modern memory, a chance
for the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of a constitutional right without
a heavy overlay of constitutional law a body of relevant
decisions from the Supreme Court itself. For faint-hearted originalists,
like Scalia and others, the existence of non-originalist precedents can be a
barrier to reaching originalist results. But here the issue was one of truly
first impression, presenting a clean controversy. It therefore allowed
the Court to address the issues on first principles of constitutional interpretation.
Dale
Carpenter
How is it 4 justices that could find a right that wasnt there for terrorists cant seem to locate the 2nd amendment? Sue
These comments clearly show which side is serious about constitutional rights, and which side isn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment