Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What The Constitution Explicitly Says About Militias [View all]Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)35. Once again, entirely incorrect.
Statute law, that is, laws passed by Congress to define what is meant in the Constitution, are held in very very high regard by the SC, and aren't overturned by the SC for any old trivial thing.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
96 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
well - 5 justices in the scotus disagree with you - that is all that matters.nt
srican69
Jan 2013
#1
there is a 47% actuarial odds that one conservative judge will die within next 4 years
srican69
Jan 2013
#4
THere's a chance of replacing a justice, that's not the same as a a chance of a rational justice
HereSince1628
Jan 2013
#8
scalia will not retire in the next 4 ... he hates liberals with a passion and will not let
srican69
Jan 2013
#57
You are correct. For some of those judges to say they are 'strict' about interpreting the
Ikonoklast
Jan 2013
#14
Silly, quit thinking that the "Well-Regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment really means anything
Hugabear
Jan 2013
#9
Just that...It means they must provide themselves with a musket (pistol, sword) for militia duty.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#68
What does a statute enacted in 1903 have to do with what the Constitution means?
merrily
Jan 2013
#71
The poster I was replying to seemed to think the 2nd A only applies to the National Guard.
former9thward
Jan 2013
#79
Whatever your opinion is, a 1903 statute has nothing to do with the meaning of a 1789 Constitution.
merrily
Jan 2013
#82
Your citing a 1903 law to prove your point about a 1789 Constitutional provision is not meaningful.
merrily
Jan 2013
#95
You cannot look to a statute adopted after the Constitution to determine what the Constitution means
merrily
Jan 2013
#74
I would not agree completely. What better way to see the intent of the Constitution
jmg257
Jan 2013
#80
We will disagree, then. From research it appears the intents are wonderfully in tune
jmg257
Jan 2013
#84
If you were correct, there would be no controvery about the meaning of the second amendment, yet
merrily
Jan 2013
#86
Of course there would be controversy, caused by anyone who wants it mis-read their way.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#89
Exactly...as I said we will disagree, especially since you are now calling me a liar.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#93
Yes, I believe your interpretation of the law is correct. Insurrection against a legitimately...
slackmaster
Jan 2013
#25
I happen to have been born in the three-month period in 1958, that caused me to miss...
slackmaster
Jan 2013
#40
Yep - under arms when being trained by the State, and of course armed when called forth
jmg257
Jan 2013
#69
Of course the right applies to individuals...you want to join the Militia, have at it!
jmg257
Jan 2013
#63
For the most part you are right, as I have posted numerous times in numerous threads here.
jmg257
Jan 2013
#23
what's the difference between a GOVERNMENT-founded, GOVERNMENT-trained, GOVERNMENT-armed, GOVERNMENT
bubbayugga
Jan 2013
#46
It really does not matter, if the second amendment means no limits then it is broken
CBGLuthier
Jan 2013
#78