Post by beth on Oct 10, 2015 15:28:10 GMT -5
Menantol, perspectives suggest they are mostly the opinion of the author. That in turn suggests it is mostly a matter of politics.
I am interested to hear what some in congress are getting ready to purpose in connection with better gun safety laws. I hope there will be a discussion thread on that subject here.
That is a good point Jessiealan, there is a lot of opinion. We could even say that opinions of the court (which are issued with every case) are only the opinion of the author as it is quite common that differing perspectives are issued by the justices of the court, often even when they all vote the same.
The Constitution didn't define the Supreme Court in terms of its absolute powers or in its acts and it was Chief Justice John Marshall who made that foundation in Marbury v. Madison in two parts. First the court could not rule on some issue outside of its jurisdiction and, secondly this case provided the foundation and definition of the process of Judicial review.
Other things came from this case, such as, the law means what the Supreme Court says what it means. At the time of this case that was not accepted by all such as President Jefferson wanting the Executive to make such decisions.
The other thing is that, the Constitution itself is the supreme law, and when the Court believes that a specific law or action is in violation of it, the Court must uphold the Constitution and set aside that other law or action, assuming that a party has standing to properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall famously put the matter this way:
“ . . . It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. . . . “
Marshall, during "Marbury v. Madison" also stated on the constitution:
“ . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. . . . “
Today such things seem so acceptable that it is hard to imagine a time when there was not that understanding and acceptance.
So yes Jessie Alan, it will be interesting to see what the Congress enacts as to guns, but unless it meets Constitutional muster, it will mean nothing. Consider, the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Individual Right and the Supreme Court has agreed to this both at the federal level and at the State level. This right predates and exists outside of the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely bars the government from impacting that Individual Right and doesn't grant it. Think of what that Second Amendment states:
“ . . . A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. . . . “
Both of the most recent cases before the Supreme Court define this as an Individual Right. A right that stands alone and not molded or impinged on by the necessity of a Militia. More over, it doesn't say to not pass a law but rather says that this right shall not be infringed. In other words government cannot do anything to alter or weaken that Individual Right, a much stronger statement.
So yes, it will be interesting to see what the Congress shall pass about guns.
I'm with you Jessie, it'll be good to hear what they have come up with. There may be some who are at least as knowledgeable about their subject as Men an tol.