BF2S Forums Constitutionalism -- A Religion?

FEOS wrote:

My statement about the 2nd Amendment stands. The right to keep and bear arms was not impacted by restrictions on the types firearms that can be owned, as firearms can still be owned.

Weak argument, especially in light of Heller.  DC tried to make this exact same argument (that residents could own rifles, therefore there was no problem with banning handguns).

There are not many SCOTUS cases directly relating to the 2nd.  Heller was huge, but intentionally limited in scope.  The 1939 Miller case is the next most important case in today's terms.  Many argue that it was a DEEPLY flawed decision, based on factors like the "militia use" idea, the fact that SBSs are in use by the military, and THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REPRESENTED.  Prior to that, there were a few cases, but those were before the 14th Amendment.  Presser v. Illinois is big, but probably wrong now that the 14th exists.

Turquoise wrote:

I don't see any difference at all here, because you're still assuming there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  The variance in interpretations is clearly evidence that this is not the case.

I think there is an issue of interpreting the application of the Constitution rather than interpreting the meaning.
For example, the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, but the scope of that right is not unlimited.  Convicted felons are denied that right, etc.

Then you have things like Brown v Board of Education, the Dredd Scott decision, cases involving pot, etc.  The applied power of the federal government is constantly changing, even though the Constitution is not changing as frequently.  I have some personal issues with this, but that is a slightly different debate.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-09-15 07:42:01)

Turquoise wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't see any difference at all here, because you're still assuming there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  The variance in interpretations is clearly evidence that this is not the case.

I think there is an issue of interpreting the application of the Constitution rather than interpreting the meaning.
For example, the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, but the scope of that right is not unlimited.  Convicted felons are denied that right, etc.

Then you have things like Brown v Board of Education, the Dredd Scott decision, cases involving pot, etc.  The applied power of the federal government is constantly changing, even though the Constitution is not changing as frequently.  I have some personal issues with this, but that is a slightly different debate.

FEOS, this is basically how I see the Constitution.  However, I'm saying that, in RAIMIUS's words, the "scope" represents what I mean by interpretation.  I suppose I was using the wrong word.

Well damn. If you had better linguistic skills, we wouldn't have had such a heated debate.

So all three of us are in essence agreeing.

Nothing to see here. Move along.