Originally posted by Arlo
Hubris does seem to fall within the range of someone having an opinion of themselves as superior in knowledge of Constitutional law than all the SCs to date
[/b]
I personally find it amusing that so many people think of the Constitution as some cosmicly complicated, inscrutable arcane piece of writing that only some first-in-his-class Harvard law grad that grew up to be an SC justice can understand.
Oh, sure, some issues are really complex. Many others, however, are not.
I think it pays to remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by farmers, merchants and sure, a few lawyers. For the most part they all had far less formal education on fewer subjects than the university grads that frequent this board.
They had one thing though that a lot of people on this board don't have. They had the balls to fight for their freedom from an oppressive government and the brains to devise a better system after they had won that freedom. The unifying aspect of all their divisive debates in creating this government was FREEDOM. Every aspect of their new form of government revolved around providing as much freedom as possible to the individual and as much restraint as possible on government power over the individual.
Bearing that in mind, one is never far wrong in deciding a Constitutional issue with the intent to provide as much freedom to the individual as possible while restraining the power of the government.
Does one need to be "superior in knowledge of Constitutional law" to determine the right decision in simple constitutional issues?
Hardly. If someone told you that Congress had just passed a law prohibiting Catholics from attending mass under penalty of imprisonment, just about any US citizen would realize that as a gross violation of the 1st Amendment before the issue ever reached the SC.
And you don't have to go far into the past to see such issues that have been incorrectly decided by the SC.
Medical marijuana, Raich v. Ashcroft, is one such decision. They found the Feds could take precedence over local marijuana laws based on the Commerce Clause which gives the government the following "limited" power..."to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;".
It's an uncredible, unbelieveable reach to find that growing your own for medical purposes threatens to swell the illicit drug market. It would seem to reduce the numbers of customers, not increase them.
It is an obviously incorrect usurpation of state power by the Feds. The amazing thing is the LIBERAL SC justices, whom you think would be less worried about medical marijuana, supported this government power grab whilst the Conservative judges, those you would think most likely to be favor government control over any illicit drug issue were against it.
Another obviously bad decision was Kelo v City of New London, which gave local government the power to force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.
Say WHAT? The framers of the Constitution must have spun in their graves over that one. This is the freedom they fought for? A government that can steal your home, forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another?
Does this follow the intent of more freedom for the individual and restraint on the powers of government? I don't think so and I think that is obvious to even the most casual observer. This is the sort of judicial activism that many decry, that is clearly outside Constitutional intent.
If this be hubris, then it is hubris in the fine tradition of the men that had the audacity to rebel against England and create this experiment in government.
Why don't you help devise a campaign/candidate (or group of) that devote themselves to amending the Constitution (which is also a method of clarifying previous amendments) until it's as clear and unavoidable to the SCOTUS as it "is" to you?
[/b]
As I mentioned before, Ii believe anyone that takes the time to read the writings of the Founders on firearms, that takes the time to read the history of the 2nd Amendment as it came to ratification, that takes the time to research the meaning of "the people" in the rest of the Constitution comes to the inescapable conclusion that the militia clause is a dependent clause. It can be no other way. All that is need is honesty. There are always those that will attempt to twist simple words, to convince the sheep that white is actually black, that will attempt to twist the Constitution to suit their own purposes. Again, which version of the 2nd gives the individual MORE freedom and restrains government power? It's not that difficult to determine.
doesn't seem to bother me as much as my challenging your claim to such
[/b]
Doesn't bother me in the least. I don't think I'm the world's best Constitutional scholar. I do, however, think I have the common sense and basic understanding of the English language necessary to read history and interpret a pretty simple statement in the Bill of Rights.
Tell me, does this seem to difficult to understand to you?
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Seems pretty clear to me.
