It should be obvious by now that the US Constitution is a failure. It is a failure because there are simply too many people who hate it or ignore it. It is a failure because even plain language is irrelevant to people who choose to "interpret" the language to fit their personal opinion.
The US Constitution was a failure even before the ink dried on the original draft, because human nature can't allow such a document to endure.
I profoundly disagree that SCOTUS has not decided what. "Level" of scrutiny to apply. First, there shouldn't even BE levels of scrutiny because rights ARE absolute - hence shall make NO law and shall NOT be infringed. But that aside and operating within the premise that levels of scrutiny being proper..... SCOTUS said explicitly "the Second Amendment is no different." That directly after a detailed context forming example where strict scrutiny, the strictest as it comes, applies because the ENUMERATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT commands it to be so.
This "SCOTUS has not said" is pure hogwash. It's as bogus as saying SCOTUS limited heller to only. "within the home" or that it DIDNT decide that a firearm could be carried and carried loaded. It did all of these things in striking down trigger locks and broken down mandates BECAUSE the right is defined as ready to use (bear).
Agreed SCOTUS did not SAY "you will now apply 'strict scrutiny' period. It DID provide direction through example. The First Amendment commands strict scrutiny - even if the protected speech was unpopular or as in the example cited offended or even scared onlookers and bystanders- and so TOO must the Second command it also, because it is NO DIFFERENT.
The intentional denial here is intended to tyro to get SCOTUS to approve of a level of scrutiny between intermediate and strict - of course only applying to the Second Amendment. I think that's exactly WHY Scalia wrote that very short but powerful sentence. He saw that coming and put the nail in the coffin before it was even attempted.
In describing WHY a law against First Amendmemt exercise failed - because a enumerated right exist- Scalia demonstrated that even "Public safety" excuses (contrived or even a real deal ) are trumped.
Some can despise a carrier or owner all they want, they can fear, disagree and even hate what they view as abhorrent. But that does not overshadow the reality that a right exists limiting those peoples ability to stop the exercise of what is indeed a enumerated right. They simply have to despise hate and whine about it - while exercise goes on unabridged regardless. No law can be democratically imposed because enumeration removes that authority expressly.
So you see. SCOTUS has indeed set Scrutiny already. It's the same as First Amendment - which is of course strict as strict gets. NO DIFFERENT.
2 comments:
It should be obvious by now that the US Constitution is a failure. It is a failure because there are simply too many people who hate it or ignore it. It is a failure because even plain language is irrelevant to people who choose to "interpret" the language to fit their personal opinion.
The US Constitution was a failure even before the ink dried on the original draft, because human nature can't allow such a document to endure.
I profoundly disagree that SCOTUS has not decided what. "Level" of scrutiny to apply. First, there shouldn't even BE levels of scrutiny because rights ARE absolute - hence shall make NO law and shall NOT be infringed. But that aside and operating within the premise that levels of scrutiny being proper..... SCOTUS said explicitly "the Second Amendment is no different." That directly after a detailed context forming example where strict scrutiny, the strictest as it comes, applies because the ENUMERATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT commands it to be so.
This "SCOTUS has not said" is pure hogwash. It's as bogus as saying SCOTUS limited heller to only. "within the home" or that it DIDNT decide that a firearm could be carried and carried loaded. It did all of these things in striking down trigger locks and broken down mandates BECAUSE the right is defined as ready to use (bear).
Agreed SCOTUS did not SAY "you will now apply 'strict scrutiny' period. It DID provide direction through example. The First Amendment commands strict scrutiny - even if the protected speech was unpopular or as in the example cited offended or even scared onlookers and bystanders- and so TOO must the Second command it also, because it is NO DIFFERENT.
The intentional denial here is intended to tyro to get SCOTUS to approve of a level of scrutiny between intermediate and strict - of course only applying to the Second Amendment. I think that's exactly WHY Scalia wrote that very short but powerful sentence. He saw that coming and put the nail in the coffin before it was even attempted.
In describing WHY a law against First Amendmemt exercise failed - because a enumerated right exist- Scalia demonstrated that even "Public safety" excuses (contrived or even a real deal ) are trumped.
Some can despise a carrier or owner all they want, they can fear, disagree and even hate what they view as abhorrent. But that does not overshadow the reality that a right exists limiting those peoples ability to stop the exercise of what is indeed a enumerated right. They simply have to despise hate and whine about it - while exercise goes on unabridged regardless. No law can be democratically imposed because enumeration removes that authority expressly.
So you see. SCOTUS has indeed set Scrutiny already.
It's the same as First Amendment - which is of course strict as strict gets. NO DIFFERENT.
Post a Comment