Is it somehow the case that the Second Amendment has mysteriously cast a dark and self-limiting cloud upon itself? And yet unstated or implicit rights, ones arising only out of the “penumbras” cast by other rights, have repeatedly given life, breadth, and full meaning to a considerable number of substantive entitlements of Constitutional dimensions?

Gee.

Or, maybe it’s just the case that Breyer and the other dissenters consider the Second Amendment to be the key (perhaps sole) portion of The Dying Constitution, as opposed to all the other rights-based and other provisions thereof, happily (for them) making up The Living Constitution? Ginsberg even finds some of her substantive inspirations across the pond! Those could hardly qualify as penumbras!

But all sarcasm aside . . .

As you point out, Ed, how then can he explain the quite clear intention of Madison in specifically describing the Second Amendment, amongst those other descriptors of his, as a barrier against the enterprises of ambition . . . .?

And more importantly, if historically, as Breyer seems to be suggesting, the ratification of the Constitution itself would have failed without a commitment for the specific inclusion of the Second Amendment, how then could he possibly now conclude that the Second Amendment constitutes anything less than the key linchpin tying together the entire original understanding of our national charter?

As such, how could the Court possibly opine, as he and the dissenters in Heller proposed to do, that the Second Amendment can now be accorded a scope that is anything less than the plain contextual meaning thereof by the least democratic of the institutions created by that Constitution?

Is he suggesting that the Second Amendment was just a “trick” intended to ensure ratification of the original charter, and that, therefore, it may now be accorded a minimalist interpretation by the Supreme Court?

It seems to me that as a sitting member of the Supreme Court, he just gave himself a considerable amount of exposure by publicly employing such circuitous reasoning!

Madison did not grant anyone the right to bear arms…the Second Amendment did not grant anyone the right to bear arms. The right predated the Amendment and exists independent of the Amendment.

The sole purpose of the proposed amendments, as stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would not grant the people any rights or grant the federal government the power to determine the extent of the people’s rights; they would place additional restraints on the powers of the federal government.

And this moron is on the Supreme Court…God help us!

Breyer is a dumb ass! The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The so-called Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791. The Constitution was in operation for 3 years before the Second Amendment was added so how could the Amendment be passed to secure ratification of the Constitution?
Skylolo on December 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM

POST OF THE YEAR !!

I really despise these elitist Libtard scum. Breyer needs to go.

Breyer’s view is the majority view, and it always has been.

crr6 on December 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Let’s add that when something is wrong,it doesn’t matter how many people think it’s right.
It’s just plain wrong.

Breyer’s view is the majority view, and it always has been.

crr6 on December 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM

We really are going to have to see the proof of that, lil feller.

About the only place it might be the majority opinion is among the surrender-monkey leftists.

I’m a christian. Why are you so quick to judge?

Darwin wrote an interesting book to be sure…

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM

+10
And means nothing to it. You & I are not Christians according to this foolish creature bcs we can understand & accept evidence science has given us, while keeping an open mind & believe in God at the same time.
According to this creature, if you accept any evidence that has anything to do with ‘evolution’, then you are a Darwinist, a racist, a eugenics supporter, an evil Satanic non-Christian whore blah blah blah blah.
You cannot reason with something like that.
It’s ignorance & childishness knows no bounds.
It only comes here to shout DARWINIST! ATHEIST! RACIST! blah blah blah blah so as to hijack the thread & make itself feel relevant to the world of HA.
It is a pathetic construct.
I have wondered if it is nothing more than a liberal troll posing as a religious nut-bag to make kind hearted Christians all look like wackos.

you’re a liar. your friend madisonfascist brought that up…trying to embarrass me…when it really embarrassed you two far more.

Madison never brought up the comments you put into at least five different threads. That was all you, and you did it once even when I hadn’t written a word to you all because Madison did something to upset you.

I’ve never lied to you, but you do see liars everywhere, just like you’re suddenly deciding Inanemergencydial is a darwinist just because you can’t remember who you were talking to before who actually is one. Doesn’t matter how many times you’re told the truth, you keep insisting that you’re right.

in the last 2 threads I didn’t start talking to you…I didn’t even respond to you in the last thread..get a clue.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 8:05 AM

So you were kind of enough to ignore me for two threads. That doesn’t undo all the other threads. I didn’t post your most hateful posts this year. Even with your convenient amnesia, I’m still not doing it, because I don’t intend to embarrass you. I’d rather you just own up to what you’ve done and turn over a new leaf.

Not everyone is fat, ugly, stupid or a rabid atheist with a final solution for you. We can have disagreements without resorting to these kinds of comments. Why not just agree to do that and to actually listen to what others are trying to say instead of assuming they have some sort of secret agenda?

I just got woke up after resting from a 84 hour work week. The coffee is kicking in…time to do something productive, like produce a stool, as opposed to conversating with you.

Hope you have a great day.

this is getting boring….

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:34 AM

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

duhhhhh

hey gomer, nows your chance to answer a question you darwiniacs never seem to answer…

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I say BOO!!! and elicit that response from you.

1.Call me gomer,
2.say ‘duhh’ as if you are addressing an inferior intellect
3.call me a darwiniac.

super-duper!

You clearly are a sockpuppet. No one I know discourses in such an infantile way as you.

WTH?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

this is getting boring….

WTH?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

lets try to keep up here…

BOO!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 8:27 AM

and then after my response, where I did not call you any names…you came up with this mean spirited dismissive and unwarrented statment….

Whatever you say sockpuppet!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM

like when you came into the this thread…and derisively dismissed a legitimate concern over jihadists?
right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

WTH?

I asked you a specific science question to assess your knowledge and understanding in an attempt to determine what level of understanding we could discourse at.

Just about every response to me since then has been mean spirited, dismissive, and unwarranted.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

what BS. I didn’t give you the answer you wanted…then you came up with snarky atheist BS about me condemning you to hell…laughable.

oh mean spirited…like when you came into the this thread…and derisively dismissed a legitimate concern over jihadists? yeah you’re so deserving of rational conversation…..

Charles Darwin wrote on many subjects. I can reject the logical outworking of his worldview without reading everything he wrote.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

you don’t have to read everything he wrote to know what a racist he was…or how racist the theory of evolution is…hell even evolutionists like gould recognize the ‘logical outworking of his worldview’

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

and in the last thread you sure sounded like a wacko atheist…using typical atheist talking…and now you’re mr. christian…. sorry ain’t buying it.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I asked you a specific science question to assess your knowledge and understanding in an attempt to determine what level of understanding we could discourse at.

Just about every response to me since then has been mean spirited, dismissive, and unwarranted.

I have never once defended, supported, or believed in evolution or its attendant worldview, you foisted that on me.

Imagine my incredulity with regard to you CRUCIFYING me as such.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

and in the last thread you sure sounded like a wacko atheist…using typical atheist talking…and now you’re mr. christian…. sorry ain’t buying it.

so which were the ‘favoured races’?

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 AM

You tell me. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I’ve never read any of his works. I understand the tenets and outworkings of his worldview though, as I am a scientist that has worked in academia, production, and discovery.. Scary stuff, evil stuff.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM

so you say you understand darwin’s world view….but you don’t have a clue as to what I am talking about…hmmmmmm

I have never once defended, supported, or believed in evolution or its attendant worldview, you foisted that on me.

Imagine my incredulity with regard to you CRUCIFYING me as such.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

oh yes crucifying you…you’re just a victim…right….so in other words you lied in that last thread.

Imagine my incredulity with regard to you CRUCIFYING me as such.

This is my homepage.

I am no atheist and I do not deny God.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:09 AM

uh huh….so how can a good ‘christian’ like you defend, support, and believe a racist atheist theory like evolution?

cognitive dissonance?