Advocate wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:Advocate wrote:Dave, please give up on your Verduga argument.
That 's not a good idea; I reject it.
Quote:It is not a 2A case,
It does
NOT have to be; for instance, compare the impact of the
Slaughterhous Cases, wherein a decision was made qua the entire Bill of Rights,
tho all of those rights were not before the court for adjudication.
Quote:and does not discuss whether the right is in the context of a well-regulated militia
That is NOT necessary to consider,
as the impartial grammarians who parsed 2A have agreed.
The militia is given only as a reason for not infringing the right of the people.
Quote:
(the big question before the court at this time). It is dicta and far from dispositive.
The USSC will do whatever it wants to DO.
It will be dispositive, if that 's what the court decides to rule.
By what reasoning do u deem it to be obiter dicta,
if
THE COURT RELIED UPON THAT DEFINITION in order to DECIDE
the VERDUGO case ??
Re your last paragraph, on what definition did Verdugo rely?
Upon
the definition of WHO the people are
that have the rights which 2A decrees shall NOT be infringed.
Some anachronists with an insufficient knowledge of American history
which to read the 2A as tho it said, only
:
"The US government shall have no authority to deprive
the government of any state of its military forces"
[thus repealing Art. I §10 sub-§3, against states keeping troops]
To those folks, including yourself,
I submit the following for comment
:
We all know from history that at the time that the Bill of Rights was passed
by Congress and ratified by the States, there was no movement to repeal
Article I §10 sub-§3 of the Constitution against the States keeping troops.
When President Eisenhower stripped away the State Militia of Arkansas,
for Federal use in 1957, away from the control of Governor Orval Faubus,
no one complained that Ike was violating the Second Amendment.
When the Kennedy bothers did the same thing to Governor George Wallace
of Alabama in 1963, after everyone had FIVE YEARS to ponder what had happened
to the State of Arkansas, again NO ONE complained ( not either Governor,
nor the Attorney General of the US, nor the Attorney General of Arkansas,
nor the Attorney General of Alabama, nor any Bar Association, nor the KKK )
that there was a violation of the Second Amendment.
If the Second Amendment were enacted to protect the rights of State governments
to keep militia, against the prohibition of Article I §10,
then why was there no objection when the protected rights of two State governments
to do so were violated ? The answer is that
NOBODY really beleives that
the Constitution was amended to protect the rights of government militia.
It is the authoritarian-collectivists' ( liberals') defense by hypocrisy.
Can u explain this, Advocate ?
I don t think u CAN !
Quote:BTW, remember that a Republican chief justice found your argument laughable.
He was a $2 whore.
The article to which u refer was not subject to peer review.
He had retired from the court already.
I remember reading that ill-considered nonsense.
It was in a Sunday supplement advertizing throw-away sheet
called "Parade Magazine".
For a few pennies, he wrote an article that was jammed between
the advertisments for hemorrhoid relief and garden manure.
He was never much of a leading intellectual light.
Were u impressed by him ?
David
