quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Then link it

A negative can't be proven
Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful
definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals.

The Preamble: "We the people of the United States..."

Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" What is the Senate and House of Representatives known to have a lot of? PEOPLE!

An how are those people elected to office?

Article 1, Section 2: "...by the people of the several states..."

Article 1, Section 5: The whole thing talks about people not as individuals directly.

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress..."

Article 1, Section 10: The whole thing explains the rights and limits of the states. What are states composed of? PEOPLE.

I'm not going to go through the whole constitution. An to be perfectly fair and honest, Article 2 talks about the President as an individual. Article 3 of the Judges. While individuals they are also a group of people. The point in all of this, is that the terms were never well defined. An that has cause a good deal of speculation and problems all on its own.

So lets try the amendments:

1st Amendment: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

4th Amendment: "The right of the people..."

9th Amendment: "...retained by the people."

10th Amendment: "...or to the people."

The third, fifth, and six each talk about individuals. The seventh and eighth refer to neither "the people" or "individuals" is a specific sense. For the most part we the citizens, are both "the people" and "individuals". And with minor problems every once in a while on most of the amendments in the bill of rights and one major in the 2nd amendment, we manage pretty well. The article Kirata posted above explained the amazing number of publications that state the 2nd is referred to as either a 'collective' right of the people, or a specific right of the individuals. So yes, you could have found a few examples directly from the constitution, by failed to consider it. In the interest of being fair and honest, I point these things out.

The problem here is that the US Supreme Court is not allowed to effectively rewrite the law nor the spirit of the law (nor definition if that is present). That role is left to Congress The US Supreme Court can however decide how it will handle a case by how one or more laws in the constitution are brought to bear on the matter before the court.

So here is the question. Can the US Supreme Court ever be wrong on a court case? Not just of "Heller vs. DC" but other cases as well? And if so, how is it corrected?

So the states have the right of assembly?

Yes they do, although there may not be assemblymen in your state.

Here we have a legislature. Senate, representatives, the whole fuck-o-ree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Then link it

A negative can't be proven
Show me one place in the Constitution other than your fanciful
definition of the 2nd were the people refers to a group and not individuals.

The Preamble: "We the people of the United States..."

Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" What is the Senate and House of Representatives known to have a lot of? PEOPLE!

An how are those people elected to office?

Article 1, Section 2: "...by the people of the several states..."

Article 1, Section 5: The whole thing talks about people not as individuals directly.

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress..."

Article 1, Section 10: The whole thing explains the rights and limits of the states. What are states composed of? PEOPLE.

I'm not going to go through the whole constitution. An to be perfectly fair and honest, Article 2 talks about the President as an individual. Article 3 of the Judges. While individuals they are also a group of people. The point in all of this, is that the terms were never well defined. An that has cause a good deal of speculation and problems all on its own.

So lets try the amendments:

1st Amendment: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

4th Amendment: "The right of the people..."

9th Amendment: "...retained by the people."

10th Amendment: "...or to the people."

The third, fifth, and six each talk about individuals. The seventh and eighth refer to neither "the people" or "individuals" is a specific sense. For the most part we the citizens, are both "the people" and "individuals". And with minor problems every once in a while on most of the amendments in the bill of rights and one major in the 2nd amendment, we manage pretty well. The article Kirata posted above explained the amazing number of publications that state the 2nd is referred to as either a 'collective' right of the people, or a specific right of the individuals. So yes, you could have found a few examples directly from the constitution, by failed to consider it. In the interest of being fair and honest, I point these things out.

The problem here is that the US Supreme Court is not allowed to effectively rewrite the law nor the spirit of the law (nor definition if that is present). That role is left to Congress The US Supreme Court can however decide how it will handle a case by how one or more laws in the constitution are brought to bear on the matter before the court.

So here is the question. Can the US Supreme Court ever be wrong on a court case? Not just of "Heller vs. DC" but other cases as well? And if so, how is it corrected?

So the states have the right of assembly?

Yes they do, although there may not be assemblymen in your state.

Here we have a legislature. Senate, representatives, the whole fuck-o-ree.

I think what he was referring to is "Can the states themselves assemble?"

It would be interesting to see it happen. All these states pulling themselves free of the earth's mantle and having a big pow wow in the middle of some ocean leaving poor DC behind wondering what they're talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HillWill
I think what he was referring to is "Can the states themselves assemble?"

It would be interesting to see it happen. All these states pulling themselves free of the earth's mantle and having a big pow wow in the middle of some ocean leaving poor DC behind wondering what they're talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You got it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
By Joether's definition the 2nd was authored by a gun nut.