The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court and 2012

[Cord Byrd]

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, a landmark decision that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states, I cautioned gun owners and constitutionalists that the battle is not over and that the opponents of liberty will not abandon their goal of taking away the right to keep and bear arms.  Now we have the proof.

Speaking at a fundraiser event for the President, Michelle Obama said, “In just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come…let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices…let’s not forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

Recently, Time magazine asked recently retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens what he would fix about the American judicial system. Stevens' response:  "I would make all my dissents into majority opinions. 

But then Time asked Stevens to single out one issue in particular, and he said, "I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment." Referring to the Court's decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases that the Second Amendment protects individuals from federal, state and local infringements on their right to possess and carry arms, he added "The court got that quite wrong."

In his dissent in Heller, Stevens claimed that "there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." And in his dissent in McDonald, he claimed that even if one assumed the Fourteenth Amendment protects a general right to self-defense, that didn't mean that a person has a right to have a handgun. As if to suggest some logic to his theory, Stevens said "while some might favor handguns, it is not clear that they are a superior weapon for lawful self-defense."

The next president will likely appoint at least two new justices.  A second Obama term will tip the 5-4 balance to the progressive side.  Once we get through the Republican primary squabble it is imperative that constitutionalists rally around the nominee if for no other reason than to ensure that supposedly least dangerous branch won’t become the opposite. 

 

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

Repubs, Mr. Stump, are professional political minorities.  Their entire purpose is not to lead, but to sit back, grumble for the camera/press, and collect their paycheck.  Look at their perks; a retirement program outside and independent the "commoners' social security", almost unlimited first class travel, allowances for at least two residences, and fortune amassing due to insider trading intel they are able to pass on to their "friends" and relatives.  Now you know why Snowe, Lugar, and Collins act as they do.

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

Tom and Roma:  Great article at the site you gave!  I'll just highly recommend it for its succinctness and accuracy.  This is why the "FDR GANG" had HUEY P. LONG ASSASSINATED.  HPL became a national hero with his arguing Caddo Co. Board of Education v. State of Louisiana.  HPL was a sitting U.S. Senator at the time and was a threat to FDR in the election of 1936.

Constitutional historians refer to what happened next as the "Revolution of 1937." The President (FDR) proposed that for each sitting justice over the age of seventy there be appointed one new Justice to "help them with their case load." In reality FDR wanted to pack the court with six additional justices willing to declare all of his "must legislation" Constitutional."

 

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

I find nothing disagreeable in Mr. Stump's opinion.  In absence of disagreement, I have to concur wholeheartedly with his statement.

[Richard V O'Brien]

Jefferson and Madison worried most about judges exceeding their authority. At this point in our history, judges legislate from the bench; and at every level, executives abdicate their authority to will of the judicial. Judges have also forced legislative branches to spend our tax dollars as they see fit! What more proof do we need before people understand that action must be taken! Newt Gingrich is correct, history proves that !     

[amanda choate]

To whom do we bequeath this power to remove judges at their own whim. I can't think of one country on earth where such powers exist that I would want to live in. The very suggestion borders madness. All hail the King!

[Sean Murphy]

"In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie", if they want our guns they will have to take them by force. Live Free or Die.

[Steve Tikas]

Just a question for judge Stevens.  Where does it give government the power to decide what is and is not the best way for the individual to defend itself?  The Constitution was put into place to limit government not to limit the individual.  To defend our rights not to be the one offending our rights. 

How does a man like that even get on the court in the first place.  Well I do know but it still surprises me that someone that takes an oath to defend the Constitution would put people in place that don't believe in the Constitution.

[duane myra]

Newt is right. Get the judges out of office. Eric Erickson of Red State said that judges can serve as long as they behave and are in good standing. This is the only way the left is getting their agenda put in place. They know we would never vote it in. No judge should get a life long appointment. ALL of the current judges, reps and senators(including their staff) has to go. And in my opinion, it sounds like someone is jealous that they don't have someone to spend lots of $$$ on them at Tiffany's.

[Armando Delgado]

For a very clear discussion of our constitution and the progressive movement, read the interview of Larry P. Arnn, the President of Hillsdale College, in the last issue of Imprimis.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

[amanda choate]

Impeachment of a federal judge for anything other than a high crime or misdemeanor seems a bit risky to me. Never make or take a power you wouldn't want your opponent to have. The courts have equal powers and often they rule against the popular opinion of the day, against those in power, They have a role. It is often out of step. Marbury v Madison is so important in that it gave us an independent judiciary. It has worked pretty well for 200 plus years. Be careful, you may get that for which you wish.