View Full Version : SCOTUS Opinion

05-01-2009, 11:43 PM
The Supreme Court of the United States verdict on Heller vs D.C. was a major play in 2nd Amendment rights. Each President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, yet they have an influence on who is appointed (in the interest of their party) to interpret and pass judgment concerning it. Should they have the power to change our Bill of Rights?

05-02-2009, 01:10 AM
No. Separation and Limitations of Powers. That is suppose to be the way the federal government was set up in order to slow or stop the progression of any single group gaining a strangle hold over the rest of us. The current trend of all three branches seeming to try and work together to do whatever they want is dangerous in my eyes.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Gerald Ford

In any case quick run down of whats suppose to happen.

Legislative branch: Make/change laws
Executive branch: Veto or Enforce the law.
Judicial branch: Mediate Disputes over the validity of a law. Problems arise when "The Intent" of a law is taken into consideration. If the Intent is not clearly defined then what should happen is the law is kicked back to congress to be fixed. If the Judges themselves try to change the meaning then they are usurping the authority of the legislative branch; who should cry foul, but rarely do.

Of course I remember something from talk radio where they mentioned debate over the Language of the law. In essence we have gone from:

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg." ~Abraham Lincoln


"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton

"It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words." ~1984 by George Orwell

05-02-2009, 09:08 AM
The Bill of Rights were written for the people, not the Government. The Bill of Rights insured that the Government couldn't get a strong hold on the people.