Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
(08-09-2015, 08:31 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: Unless there is an amendment made to the Constitution or a new ruling saying otherwise, the SCOTUS saying that it is Constitutional means that it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.
The smartest person on the SCOTUS, and perhaps the most brilliant legal mind today disagrees with that assessment.
An amendment is required to change the constitution, and the Supreme Court IS capable of violating the constitution and they have.
A revolution or another civil is possible when all three branches of government are collectively corrupt and collectively and in unison violate the constitution. That is what the 2nd amendment is for, and we are close to this violation if not already there.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. To allow the policy question of same-***** marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” --Antonin Scalia
(08-09-2015, 08:31 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: Unless there is an amendment made to the Constitution or a new ruling saying otherwise, the SCOTUS saying that it is Constitutional means that it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.
The smartest person on the SCOTUS, and perhaps the most brilliant legal mind today disagrees with that assessment.
An amendment is required to change the constitution, and the Supreme Court IS capable of violating the constitution and they have.
A revolution or another civil is possible when all three branches of government are collectively corrupt and collectively and in unison violate the constitution. That is what the 2nd amendment is for, and we are close to this violation if not already there.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. To allow the policy question of same-***** marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” --Antonin Scalia
The smartest person on the SCOTUS, and perhaps the most brilliant legal mind today disagrees with that assessment.
An amendment is required to change the constitution, and the Supreme Court IS capable of violating the constitution and they have.
A revolution or another civil is possible when all three branches of government are collectively corrupt and collectively and in unison violate the constitution. That is what the 2nd amendment is for, and we are close to this violation if not already there.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves. To allow the policy question of same-***** marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” --Antonin Scalia