Justice Scalia and Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation

The United States does have a militia--two, in fact. The organized militia--the National Guard--and the unorganized militia, everybody else. Read about the efficiency of the militia bill, 1903.

Just because you are ignorant of something (and you are ignorant of so much) is not evidence that a subject has not been addressed.

Little Miss Can't Be Wrong--

your personal and ideosyncratic interpretation is meaningless.

The United States has militia,

and statutory provision for militia--whether or not you approve is beside the point.

Justice Scalia is very smart, even though I disagree with a lot of his decisions.

They should have asked him about his views on Creationism in Science Classes. As good as he is with legal president, he appears to be ignorant of basic biological science, so that would be a good place to start picking apart some of the methodology that he uses to make decisions (in particular cases).

The founders put nine people on the court. That alone implies that
they knew the constitution would have to be interpreted, making the
interpreters themselves an active part of founding law. It gave life to the document.

I don't think Scalia's argument for "original intent" is a pure argument
without recognizing that he doesn't sit alone on the bench, and that was be design.

In the case of Scott v. Sanford, though, the changing norms were enacted by Congress and the States.
The role of the Taney court was to decide, correctly, that the original constitution had no problem with slavery.

I never understood why people think Scott v. Sanford teaches us about the perils of activist judges.

If anything, it teaches us about the perils of bad constitutions. . . .

Thomas wrote:

If anything, it teaches us about the perils of bad constitutions. . . .

Compromises were made; thay wanted to get as many States as possible to join up.
Even in the North, slavery had been legal, early enuf into American history.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Thomas wrote:

If anything, it teaches us about the perils of bad constitutions. . . .

Compromises were made; thay wanted to get as many States as possible to join up.
Even in the North, slavery had been legal, early enuf into American history.

That's my point.

Americans don't "pledge allegiance to the American flag, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under god, with as many states in it as possible, in which compromises were made." Which would be the correct thing to say.

Thomas wrote:

Americans don't "pledge allegiance to the American flag, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under god, with as many states in it as possible, in which compromises were made." Which would be the correct thing to say.

It woud have been, if u had capitalized God 's name.

Concerning militia, the critical criterion
is whether thay r private militia, formerly called "well regulated militia"
or
whether thay r government sponsored militia, formerly called "selected militia".
( In theory, the 2 militia might go to war against one another. )

The militia of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution r very obviously selected militia.

That does not apply to the militia of the 2nd Amendment.





David

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

I've shown you to be wrong on numerous occasions--that you won't ever admit that you have been wrong is not evidence that you haven't.

I know of no reason to consider you a constitutional scholar, and i see no reason to accept your silly claims about whether or not the Dick Act is constitutional. Once again, you making a claim that you are right in contradiction of the Congress is not evidecne that you are in fact right.

parados wrote:

So you think I can legally posses Stinger missiles under the 2nd amendment?
And I can also possess a suitcase nuke?

Well, if we could get the government to obey the first half of the Second Amendment and have a militia as they are required to have, if you joined that militia you'd certainly have the right to have Stinger missiles.

What use would a militia have for a suitcase nuke? (emphasis added)

Wrong. Neither the National Guard nor the "unorganized militia" count as a militia for Constitutional purposes.

I've repeatedly cited the bombing of Dresden by the USAAF, and have linked sources to support my position. Your response, typical of your rhetorical skills, is just to say "nope," as though you are some recognized authority--which, of course, you are not. I've pointed this out again and again, so there is no "funny" case of me being unable to point out such cases.

As the authority for the organized and the unorganized militia is the Dick Act, you clearly do not consider the Dick Act to pass constitutional muster.

These are the only two mentions of militia in Article One, Section Eight:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I see no reason to fall in with your silly claim about the constitution.

Clearly, these two portions of Article One, Section Eight assume that a militia exists. It also clearly gives Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia. You have offered no reasonable argument that the Dick Act does not meet these criteria, or that the National Guard does not constitute the militia.

Basically, it appears that you are ranting from some patisan, polemical position, but from no logical position.

You certainly have not made your case.

Does a militia have a role similar to the military?

A small nuclear device can be used as a deterrent can it not? Shouldn't a militia be allowed defensive weapons?

If the adult population is not the militia then aren't you arguing that the USSC ruling is all wrong?

Sure I have. I've provided two solid reasons that back what I say. And so far no one has even attempted to challenge either of those reasons.

parados wrote:

If the adult population is not the militia then aren't you arguing that the USSC ruling is all wrong?

Yes. They are creating all sorts of logical problems by recognizing *only* the self-defense right, while ignoring the militia aspects of the right. In order to justify that, they had to twist a lot of stuff to explain why the militia language refers to weapons suitable for self defense, but not to weapons suitable for militia use.