Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

Common History Myths: Historical Inevitability Edition

Дата: 10.07.2014 19:11:30
View PostBabyOlifant, 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.  

View PostZinegata, 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"

Реклама | Adv