US Supreme Court Rulings clarification inquiry

[Smoker1]

OK, so I am curious about something.....

Say there is a Ruling by the US Supreme Court. Either by 3-2 or 4-1 Ruling. I am curious, if those 2 or 1 Judge/s make certain Statements, or Ruling according to how they determine something to be, since the Ruling was 3-2 or 4-1, does that mean their Ruling is Overruled, and Nullified?

 

[Xzi]

The majority appoints one justice to present in writing their unified opinion, while the minority also appoints one justice to present in writing their dissenting opinion. Only the majority opinion "takes effect" and decides how SCOTUS is interpreting constitutional law in line with a given case. In other words, the minority dissenting opinion is simply for demonstrating to the public that there was in fact opposition to a given ruling.

SCOTUS in decades long past cared about maintaining a non-partisan image, so unanimous rulings on some issues were a realistic possibility.

 

[Smoker1]

Well I am curious about something that Biden keeps throwing around - "Your Rights are not Absolute" .........so does that mean that if you are Religious, they could deny you your Right to practice your Religion? That mean they can Deny your 4th, or 5th Amendment Rights? Oh, and even when you have done nothing wrong????? Does that also mean they can Deny you your Right to Vote, or even Deny Women's Rights? That mean they can scrap the 13th Amendment and bring back Slavery? Hey, if Rights are not absolute, guess that means the Constitutional Rights to them dont mean jack.

 

[Xzi]

Well I am curious about something that Biden keeps throwing around - "Your Rights are not Absolute"

You'd have to provide context, and it very well could be an AI video these days, but I'd assume he's referring to rights which are taken away after being convicted for a crime. Or perhaps specific provisions within a given amendment.

 

[x65943]

The majority appoints one justice to present in writing their unified opinion, while the minority also appoints one justice to present in writing their dissenting opinion. Only the majority opinion "takes effect" and decides how SCOTUS is interpreting constitutional law in line with a given case. In other words, the minority dissenting opinion is simply for demonstrating to the public that there was in fact opposition to a given ruling.

SCOTUS in decades long past cared about maintaining a non-partisan image, so unanimous rulings on some issues were a realistic possibility.

Mostly right, but dissenting opinions can and often are written by multiple different judges with differing reasoning

So there might be 2 or 3 dissenting opinions published as separate documents

 

[Smoker1]

Plus, like I said in another Thread, there are so many Judges, Governors, and Representatives trying to play Word Games and trying to try and work around certain Amendments just so they can push or force their Views on People.

 

[Xzi]

Plus, like I said in another Thread, there are so many Judges, Governors, and Representatives trying to play Word Games and trying to try and work around certain Amendments just so they can push or force their Views on People.

It is a judge's job to interpret laws and how they apply to a specific case. Ultimately though it's only their final verdict which actually matters, or the verdict of the jury. Politicians are free to say whatever they want, but ultimately their true colors are revealed in how they govern and how they vote on specific issues/bills.

 

[Smoker1]

Here's the thing though - First, please look into the 2A for example, and look into why it was put in place, and why it is important. Along with understanding the Text of it, when it was put in place. Remember, it took them a couple Years to finalize it, and it had a couple different Versions. So yes, they knew Weapons would advance, but still wanted to make sure The People could still keep the Government in check.

Now, there was a Judge that flat out said, "You have the Right to "Keep and Bear Arms", but it says nothing about Purchasing.". Um......then how can you "Keep and Bear Arms" then???? For the eventual argument, I know there will be a Judge or someone claiming the same thing, but referring to Ammunition. Again, then how can you Bear Arms if you do not have Ammunition??? Plus, how does that go with the History and Text of the 2A???
California is even Justifying what they are doing by citing a Law back in the Day that was Racist that said Blacks, Native Americans, Asians could not own Firearms. Thought the Left was now against Racism and Discrimination, but they will use it when it suits them?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Um......then how can you "Keep and Bear Arms" then???

enlist and earn the privilege.

Again, then how can you Bear Arms if you do not have Ammunition???

easily.

Thought the Left was now against Racism and Discrimination, but they will use it when it suits them?

What are you talking about.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Now, there was a Judge that flat out said, "You have the Right to "Keep and Bear Arms", but it says nothing about Purchasing.".

Context, please? Always cite direct sources when quoting potentially volatile statements.

Um......then how can you "Keep and Bear Arms" then????

Each state has their own interpretation of what the Second Amendment means. When it was created, the context was muskets and rifles, not AR-15s and full-auto machine guns. Keep that in mind as well. America has some of the loosest gun control laws in the world. Gun rights aren't going anywhere. This is an ill-founded worry, in my opinion.

California is even Justifying what they are doing by citing a Law back in the Day that was Racist that said Blacks, Native Americans, Asians could not own Firearms.

Again, source needed. With surrounding context so it isn't taken out of context.

Thought the Left was now against Racism and Discrimination, but they will use it when it suits them?

Don't do this. Please, don't do this. Categorizing every progressive in America as a collective "left" and immediately accusing them of racism when it suits them is unfounded and provocative. Your argument is shaky, and there is more than likely a reasonable explanation for your concern. Do not label.

 

[Smoker1]

@Dark_Ansem - Slight Issue: It is a Amendment in the Constitution, and says , "...the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE...". It does not say only Military.
Let's look at when it was put in place -
1 - It took a few Years, and also, it had a few different Versions. So yes, they had to have discussed Weapons getting Advanced, and also the possibilities of, "What if" scenarios. Examples being, what if the Government uses a standing Army against The People, or what if the Government goes against the People, like, for examples,
Turkey 1915-1917,
Soviet Union 1929-1953.
Germany 1939-1945,
China 1948-1952,
Guatemala 1964-1981,
Uganda 1971-1979,
Cambodia 1975-1977,
Seems when Gun Control is Established, lots of Defenseless People end up getting rounded up, and either Imprisoned, or Mass Murdered just because they are a different Race, Religion, or they Disagree with the Government.
----Plus, Ukraine is a perfect example.

2 - At the time the 2nd was being put into the Constitution, they had just fought against England. England was trying to Demand everyone here go by their Rules, Pay Taxes for them, do as they say, and trying to strip everyone of Arms. Apparently also claiming that those here were Weak, unable to Cope with so formidable a adversary ("Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death", Patrick Henry 1775 Speech). Kind of sound familiar with Biden and others claiming we cannot win against a bad guy with a Gun or against Tyranny.

3 - The Founders wanted to make sure, The People would remain in Control, and if needed, could be able to keep the Government in Check, and if needed, be able to also fight back against Threats, whether they be Foreign or Domestic Threats.
----Again, look at Ukraine.

4 - Text of the 2A as it meant back then. NOT what those want it to be with their Redefining of Words to meet their Views or Agenda.

== A Well Regulated - Meant Well Supplied, Well Prepared, Ready if ever they need to Act.

== Militia - They knew a Standing Army could be used against The People. Also, who fought against England? The People. WE were the Militia. WE are supposed to make sure the Government is kept in check. To keep it a Country of the People, by the People, for the People.

== Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State - There was no National Guard back then, and, again, they knew a Standing Army could be used against The People. So they wanted to make sure that WE THE PEOPLE can make sure we keep our RIGHTS and FREEDOMS, and whoever wants to go against The People of this Land, our Rights and Freedoms, would not be successful, because we would be able to Fight Back.

== The Right - Not Privilege, not requiring Permission.

== Of The People - Does not say The Wealthy, does not say Military, does not say Government, only certain People, says THE PEOPLE. There are even those claiming the 2A is not meant for those who are less fortunate, but only for The Wealthy.

== To Keep and Bear Arms - Does not mean only certain Arms, does not mean only Weapons that look like the ones the Military uses, does not mean only what they had when the 2A was Written. It says Arms. Also, Purchasing makes it so you can Keep and Bear Arms, and for the forseable argument, yes that includes Ammunition, because if you dont have Ammunition, then how can you use a Firearm except to swing at someone???? Besides, for those that thing, just man up and fight back, if there are more than 1 Criminal, and if they are Armed, how are you going to fight off a Bullet????
--Also, please, do tell me how someone with a Criminal Record, is able to magically Pass a Background Check?
--According to the FBI or ATF (I forgot which, but I looked it up a while ago), you can not go from 1 State, into another State to Purchase a Firearm due to that State having less restrictive Laws. Only way you can do that, is if you are actively Living in that State at that time, and you have Residency.
++++Yes, there are States that allow it, but you still have to Pass not only that State's Requirements, but also your Home State's Requirements. But if a Dealer Violates that, then go after the Dealer, not The People's Rights.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99

== Shall Not Be Infringed - Meaning you can not make it so those Less Fortunate cannot Afford to Exercise the Right, or make it so they cannot meet certain Requirements, make Limits to how many they can have, or which Firearms they can have, or Punish the Everyday Law Abiding for the Acts of Criminals or those who have Mental Issues.

Please, actually watch Videos



Also, should Note Murdock vs. Pennsylvania (1943). Dealt with a separate Constitutional Right, but the Conclusions alone apply to other Constitutional Rights.
"The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania
+++So actually, trying to make it so only the Wealthy can Afford to Exercise a Right can not only be seen as Discriminating, but also going against the Majority of the Population of The People.

Also reference Title 18 United States Code, Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color Of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
---If certain Conditions are met, Title 18 United States Code, Section 241 can be Applied as well
Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.

Also, should know, that apparently there are 2 Bills (House Bill 6981 and Senate Bill 3589) that will Ban Militias, and not sure, but apparently make it so People cannot assist Law Enforcement OR Military if ever something happens.
=== I did not watch the Video, but saw a Video Preview that was Listed showing Body Cam/Dash Cam Footage of a Police Officer under Attack by a Criminal, and a Armed Civilian came to Assist the Officer. I think it also said the Officer was Injured. So if those Bills do have it to where People cannot Aid Law Enforcement, what......just let that Officer Die, dont do anything???? If something happens and the Military is overwhelmed, just let it happen, the People wont be allowed to do anything about it, whatever the situation is??????

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347324-the-racist-origin-of-gun-control-laws/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_&_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

 

[AdenTheThird]

*Fucking massive wall of text*

First off, this is all over the place and blown entirely out of proportion. Analyzing each word of the Second Amendment really doesn't fly today since the context now is completely different to when the amendment was written.

Seems when Gun Control is Established, lots of Defenseless People end up getting rounded up, and either Imprisoned, or Mass Murdered just because they are a different Race, Religion, or they Disagree with the Government.

Um... what? Take a look at Germany today. Or, take a look at most of Europe today. They have significantly stricter gun laws than we do, Germany in particular. Do you see their government herding and shooting people? No, you don't. Because, and I'm sorry to have to say this, but America does not own the concept of freedom. Germany is free. Spain is free. Austria is free. All have tight gun control, and none of them have governmental overreach as you're implying.

Turkey 1915-1917,
Soviet Union 1929-1953.
Germany 1939-1945,
China 1948-1952,
Guatemala 1964-1981,
Uganda 1971-1979,
Cambodia 1975-1977,

Hilarious. Taking mass atrocities from history, ignoring all buildup and background context, and equating ALL of them to strict gun control. Do you know how much buildup there was before Hitler came to power? It only happened because of Germany's recession from WWI, the crippling German economy, and a host of other factors. Gun control was a side effect, NOT a cause. Gun control does not translate to mass state-sponsored murder. This is a huge historical fallacy.

2 - At the time the 2nd was being put into the Constitution, they had just fought against England. England was trying to Demand everyone here go by their Rules, Pay Taxes for them, do as they say, and trying to strip everyone of Arms. Apparently also claiming that those here were Weak, unable to Cope with so formidable a adversary ("Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death", Patrick Henry 1775 Speech). Kind of sound familiar with Biden and others claiming we cannot win against a bad guy with a Gun or against Tyranny.

Again, blown out of context. Biden is referring to political opposition, not literal life-and-death wartime. America's biggest enemy right now is itself. Equating gun control to life-or-death circumstances on a national scale only demonstrates a fundamental lack of how good you have it.

Please, actually watch Videos

Candid videos by a known gun rights activist and prominent right-wing advocate are not reliable sources, much less credibility for an already disproportionate argument.


Most of the rest of this mammoth wall of fallacies is taking the second amendment out of context and using entirely unrealistic what-if scenarios to strike fear into your opposition. These are not valid arguments or stances and bear no credibility against factually-based evidence.

Finally, I sincerely request that you clean up your formatting, especially when posting things as long as this. Your inconsistent usage of capitalization, run-on sentences, italics, and overuse of punctuation ("????", "!!!", and plus and equals signs for some reason) make your argument extremely difficult to follow. That's not even considering how massive your post is, which most people simply won't bother reading.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

@Smoker1 You're certainly spending a lot of words and deliberate partial construction of sources to make a non-existent point. If you're that versed in constitutional law, why are you here and not on SCOTUS board? Could it be your word salads are exactly that? and nothing more?

 

[AdenTheThird]

@Smoker1 You're certainly spending a lot of words and deliberate partial construction of sources to make a non-existent point. If you're that versed in constitutional law, why are you here and not on SCOTUS board? Could it be your word salads are exactly that? and nothing more?

I honestly don't even know what to think. So much dedicated effort to deconstruct, manipulate, and rephrase sources to create a half-baked, bizarre, fallacious... argument? Can it even be called that? The entire post was confusing. Seems he tried to chase twenty rabbits at once, and they all got away.

 

[titan_tim]

"Your Rights are not Absolute" .........so does that mean that if you are Religious, they could deny you your Right to practice your Religion? That mean they can Deny your 4th, or 5th Amendment Rights?

I'm guessing you mean this?


He's not wrong, but you're being hyperbolic about the interpretation. He correctly states that you can't have a tank, rocket launcher, etc. Even though the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically state that. Freedom of religion is always there, but you can't practice a religion that actively promotes violence against others.

The constitution is a living document that has changed with the times. That' why there isn't the 3/5th's compromise, and women are able to vote today. There were still people during those times who griped and groaned at the additions of those amendments, but the majority prevailed, as it should.

 

[Smoker1]

OK, then I guess we should be able to Ban all Vehicles then.
Michigan 2021 Christmas Parade. 6 Dead, 62 Injured


South Sacramento, CA 2023


All these Drunk Drivers, Racers especially when Vehicles have been used to harm others. Just curious as to what would stop someone from grabbing a Vehicle, waiting for the right moment, and driving over a bunch of People. If they are wanting People to go after Firearm Makers and apparently even Ammunition Makers, then People should be able to go after Vehicle Makers, Alcohol Drink makers, Cell Phone Makers when someone is distracted, Knives, Hammer Makers or Crowbar, or Baseball Bats. Last 3, are used more than Firearms according to the FBI.
As for Vehicles, hey, you have the Right to Travel, but it does not say how. You got 2 Legs, use them. Hey, you want to Ban anything just because someone uses it to harm People, especially Kids, well guess what - I guess that means BAN VEHICLES, BAN EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE USED TO HARM PEOPLE. But that is not being done.....figure that out. Go to do it for 1 thing, better do it for all, even when People have not, or are not going to do anything wrong with the item in question.

 

[AdenTheThird]

OK, then I guess we should be able to Ban all Vehicles then.

Excellent example of a cowardly retreat. Once confronted and told that his argument makes no sense, he retreats into an all-or-nothing fallacy.
No, just because people are killed with vehicles does not mean vehicles are the problem. The difference here would be that vehicles aren't conceived as deadly weapons and guns are, but that's probably too nuanced for this individual. As far as he's concerned, if something can kill a person, that means it's bad! This argument is even weaker than the last.
Jesus.

 

[Smoker1]

Excellent example of a cowardly retreat. Once confronted and told that his argument makes no sense, he retreats into an all-or-nothing fallacy.
No, just because people are killed with vehicles does not mean vehicles are the problem. The difference here would be that vehicles aren't conceived as deadly weapons and guns are, but that's probably too nuanced for this individual. As far as he's concerned, if something can kill a person, that means it's bad! This argument is even weaker than the last.
Jesus.

Actually, they can Charge you with Assault with a Deadly Weapon when a Vehicle is involved.

 

[Hanafuda]

He correctly states that you can't have a tank, rocket launcher, etc.

Yes you can. With a tank, the main gun would have to be disabled, but you can own a tank. Any machine guns, if enabled, would have to be registered as Class III firearms. (But, there are probably no tanks in civilian operation with "live" machine guns. Probably.) With a rocket launcher, it must be registered with the ATF as a "destructive device."

Civilians can own full-auto machine guns too. Again, would need to be registered as Class III firearms, and the owner must pay a special tax to get the permit. But there was an effective ban starting in 1989 on any new full-auto firearms being manufactured in the USA, or imported to the USA, unless they are for government/LE use (reassuring, huh). So, there is a finite supply of "machine guns" available for legal civilian ownership, meaning most cost as a much as a car and the people who buy them usually have a commercial interest in owning them.

As for the dudes in the late 1700's having any concept of weapons evolving and improving, of course such advances were actually in progress at the time. Repeater arms existed then. And also consider, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and 2nd Amendment), civilians could own large cannons, on land or on ships, and in theory terrorize and bombard whole cities if they so desired. The early US government even used to hire owners of armed ships to go hunt pirates in the name of the US govt, but still as civilians under contract. They were given "letters of marque" to legitimize their warfare.

The constitution is a living document that has changed with the times.

The Constitution is a document which was ratified by the States according to the specific language it contains, in 1788. There is no such thing as a "living" document. It can be amended, and there is a process for it. But its meaning does not change with the whim or wish of those who would want it to say something different, unless they're simply ignorant and can't read at the same level as those who wrote it.

 

[Smoker1]

Can also have a Cannon and even a Flamethrower.