Common History Myths: Historical Inevitability Edition
Дата: 10.07.2014 19:11:30
BabyOlifant, on Jul 09 2014 - 20:14, said: I think his point, Nick, was that it's not the Constitution that
denotes them as pre-existing, which so far as I know, is true.The_Chieftain: With respect, that wasn't what he said. "the actual core
legal document (The Constitution) in fact does not make
the same declaration and instead says that rights are in fact
granted and protected by the state." Legally acknowledged
pre-existing rights are not granted by the State per se. They
generally are common-law rights which are enumerated by the courts
(Granted, a State agent, but the only ones in a position to
identify a right) as rights. If they are inalienable or not,
I'm not going to go as far as to say. That they exist is good
enough. The US, and for that matter Ireland (where I
obtained my law degree), both are a little unusual, perhaps,
in that they are Constitutional jurisdictions created out of the
already extant Constitution-free UK legal system: American
legal history and precedent does not start in 1789, nor Irish legal
history in 1937, though of course the Constitution does overrule
anything in place before then -if- the Constitution happens to bear
upon it. I fear that Zinegata is confusing me with
someone who is unable to understand legal principles or is blinded
by ideology and that I'm attempting to make claims which I am
not.
Zinegata, on Jul 10 2014 - 02:39, said: Actually says flat-out that the "right to bear arms" is under the
purview of a "well regulated Militia" as it necessary to the
security of the state. Varous justices may disagree on this; but
then again the Supreme Court has been known to do extremely stupid
things like completely ignore the Free/Slave state divide in the
Dredd Scott case simply because the lead Supreme Court justices at
the time were all from the South and were simply flat-out biased
for slavery.The_Chieftain: Even Dredd Scott was a split opinion. If all nine
2008 SCOTUS justices with an acknowledged ideological split
are in agreement in their written opinions that the 2nd is a
pre-existing right, then it's a reasonable confirmation to the
statement that 2A referred to a right which was pre-existing.
See Scalia (Majority): "We look to this because it has always been
widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the
pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall
not be infringed.” and Stevens (Dissent) "And the Court’s
emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment . .
. codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19, is of course
beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms
for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right"
Common History Myths: Historical Inevitability Edition














