5-4: SUPREMES EXTEND GUN RIGHTS NATIONWIDE

ss109, I agree with you, she has an agenda, not sure what it is! I heard FOX news this morning talking about Sotomayor hearings as well, I didn't trust her whatsoever, obama's picks are very liberal.

Let us not forget that it is precisely because of the liberal court and their practice of selective incorporation that this ruling was issued - much to the chagrin of the liberal wing of the court.

By expanding the reach of the Constitution and its amendments outside of the realm of being applicable only to the federal government via the selective incorporation rulings, they made today all but inevitable. Had the progressive ideology of past judges not radically altered the reach and scope of the Constitution and the federal government in general, we would still be abiding by the original intent of the document and it would only apply to the federal government, not to state and local governments.

Had this case been heard prior to the radical decisions issued by SCOTUS, it would have failed because those that penned the Constitution never meant it to usurp the power of the state governments to enact legislation for their particular state and the desires of the people who lived within them.

PrintSmith wrote: Let us not forget that it is precisely because of the liberal court and their practice of selective incorporation that this ruling was issued - much to the chagrin of the liberal wing of the court.

By expanding the reach of the Constitution and its amendments outside of the realm of being applicable only to the federal government via the selective incorporation rulings, they made today all but inevitable. Had the progressive ideology of past judges not radically altered the reach and scope of the Constitution and the federal government in general, we would still be abiding by the original intent of the document and it would only apply to the federal government, not to state and local governments.

Had this case been heard prior to the radical decisions issued by SCOTUS, it would have failed because those that penned the Constitution never meant it to usurp the power of the state governments to enact legislation for their particular state and the desires of the people who lived within them.

Good point! Sometimes the Right likes state rights, and sometimes they want to take away the rights of states to legislate themselves. Same for the Left, Chicago should be able to ban handguns, but if gay marriage is legal in Vermont, it should be legal in all 50 states.

DrMike wrote: Sonia Sotomayor who said when going through the hearings last year, was for the 2nd admin and people owning guns, voted against it today.

Given that Sotomajor was one of the judges who ruled that rice threshing tools, nunchaku, were covered in the weapon prohibitions in New York, that she would vote as she did to not include the 2nd Amendment under the blanket of selective incorporation should come as a surprise to no one.

PrintSmith wrote:

DrMike wrote: Sonia Sotomayor who said when going through the hearings last year, was for the 2nd admin and people owning guns, voted against it today.

Given that Sotomajor was one of the judges who ruled that rice threshing tools, nunchaku, were covered in the weapon prohibitions in New York, that she would vote as she did to not include the 2nd Amendment under the blanket of selective incorporation should come as a surprise to no one.

Elections have consequences, remember that come November.

SS109 wrote: Good point! Sometimes the Right likes state rights, and sometimes they want to take away the rights of states to legislate themselves. Same for the Left, Chicago should be able to ban handguns, but if gay marriage is legal in Vermont, it should be legal in all 50 states.

The solution, of course, is to simply restrict the powers and prohibitions in the Constitution and its Amendments to the federal government as was originally intended by the founding fathers. If the federal government wishes to expand its powers and influence, or the people themselves wish to have them expanded, it can be done via the amendment process as were the questions of suffrage for women, suffrage for the freed slaves, presidential term limits and the power to lay and collect an income tax from citizens of the union of states.

We need to come to a firm understanding in all cases whether the amendments apply to the federal government alone or whether they incorporate those rights to every inhabitant in all of the states. It really is an either or situation instead of the hodgepodge that currently exists where some amendments are applicable only to the federal government and some of them are all inclusive. This selective incorporation nonsense has got to go.

PS,
And as much as you may wish to rein in the Feds, their bureau's post thousands of new regulations and guidelines every year. It really is a Kafkaesque nigthmare of red tape out there even if we got Congress to stop legislating.

Only because we have not stood firm in our opposition to the incremental (or progressive) usurpation of power by the federal government over the last 110+ years. We have the power and ability to eviscerate the accumulated usurpation of our liberty - time will tell us if we have the will and the desire that must accompany that ability and power.

I have noticed that not one Liberal has joined in this celebration or discussion. Is there a reason? I would think all Americans would be happy.

The Viking wrote: I have noticed that not one Liberal has joined in this celebration or discussion. Is there a reason? I would think all Americans would be happy.

I support this decision, but also believe that the 2nd amendment 'as written' allows someone to carry a missile launcher in downtown Denver. The Constitution needs to reflect technology that the founders could never imagine. How would you like the pressure of making a decision today that would effect people 200 years from now . We can't possibly know how science and knowledge will change our understanding of the world.
The court made the right decision in this case (by law) but communities should have some ability to decide at the local level what they want for themselves.Isn't that what conservatives are all about.
A very activist decision that in this case I agree with.