Gun Confiscation Crusade Begins

[TCassidy]

Please provide the legislation restricting the Supreme Court from overruling a past decision.

I am not aware of any legislation in that the Legislative branch is limited to determining the number of Justices serve on the SCOTUS.

However, Stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by things decided”) is basically the concept of precedent applied to SCOTUS rulings

When an issue has already been ruled on SCOTUS will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.

For the most part, the SCOTUS will invoke Stare decisis when the ruling dealt with the Constitution, or a statute that has been ruled to require strict scrutiny (the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest).

In such cases the SCOTUS will not hear nor overturn a previous ruling.

 

[church mouse guy]

If Romans 13 is correct, then God actually places governments in power (and Paul wrote these words when his government was less than ideal as well).

There you go again. Fidel Castro came to power by overthrowing the previous dictator. The first thing that he did was confiscate all guns possible and then he and Che and Raul began executing people left and right and they personally staffed the firing squads themselves. Che said that he like firing guns and murdering people. Raul is considered a bigger butcher than Fidel. Even the Russians called Raul the butcher. God may allow this but Nahum says that God is against this.

 

[Revmitchell]

Apparently I missed the part where the Supreme Court cannot overrule a previous decision. .

This is a strawman. I never said they could not overrule a previous decision. I said they cannot just say whatever they want, I said if they ruled that individules could not bear arms it would be wrong, Ive argued that doing such would cause a civil war. I have never argued that.

 

[church mouse guy]

The court makes bad decisions. The two most infamous are probably Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade, as you know. Government is a necessary evil because of fallen human nature and total depravity, which I believe.

 

[JonC]

I am not aware of any legislation in that the Legislative branch is limited to determining the number of Justices serve on the SCOTUS.

However, Stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by things decided”) is basically the concept of precedent applied to SCOTUS rulings

When an issue has already been ruled on SCOTUS will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.

For the most part, the SCOTUS will invoke Stare decisis when the ruling dealt with the Constitution, or a statute that has been ruled to require strict scrutiny (the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest).

In such cases the SCOTUS will not hear nor overturn a previous ruling.

But not always - there have been over a dozen such decisions revisited and overruled.

 

[JonC]

This is a strawman. I never said they could not overrule a previous decision. I said they cannot just say whatever they want, I said if they ruled that individules could not bear arms it would be wrong, Ive argued that doing such would cause a civil war. I have never argued that.

the law cannot be changed. The SC might be taken over and rule otherwise but it would not be lawful and many would not recognize it as such.

My only point here is the law can be changed without the 2nd amendment being changed. Isn't this what you hope for with abortion - that the unborn would be recognized as having Constitutional rights?

 

[TCassidy]

But not always - there have been over a dozen such decisions revisited and overruled.

On a Constitutional issue requiring close scrutiny?

 

[JonC]

On a Constitutional issue requiring close scrutiny?

On freedom of religion and requiring children to pledge the flag in public schools regardless of religious objection.

 

[TCassidy]

On freedom of religion and requiring children to pledge the flag in public schools regardless of religious objection.

Is that a Constitutional issue regarding close scrutiny?

 

[JonC]

On a Constitutional issue requiring close scrutiny?

The 4th Ammendment is another (perhaps due to changing technology).

 

[JonC]

Is that a Constitutional issue regarding close scrutiny?

No more than banning guns.

 

[JonC]

Maybe a good compromise would be allowing only the types of guns and ammunition that existed when the second amendment was authored.

 

[TCassidy]

No more than banning guns.

In other words you don't know.

 

[TCassidy]

Maybe a good compromise would be allowing only the types of guns and ammunition that existed when the second amendment was authored.

Yes, and freedom of speech and the press should be limited to ink pots and quill pens.

 

[JonC]

In other words you don't know.

Yes, I don't know on that one. I know it was with the detaining of Japeneese in WW2, and perhaps with some of the 4th Amendment decisions.

It wouldn't need to be in the case of the second amendment (It could be re-evaluated to interpret "militia" as "organized militia". The decision was, as you know, close).

Or they could take our guns on our 45th birthday, when we are no longer part of the unorganized militia.

 

[JonC]

Yes, and freedom of speech and the press should be limited to ink pots and quill pens.

I knew we could find a compromise.

 

[Alcott]

Maybe a good compromise would be allowing only the types of guns and ammunition that existed when the second amendment was authored.

A gun that old would blow up in your face.

 

[JonC]

A gun that old would blow up in your face.

You just point it the other way.

 

[Alcott]

You just point it the other way.

NOW somebody tells me!

 

[HankD]

What if, what if, what if...

How about

What is, what is, what is...