- Dec 20, 2013
- 12,340
I've cited Scalia's reasoning previously, but I found this seven minute clip and thought some here would appreciate hearing it in his own words:
I will watch it later, but his dicta from the bench is still bedeviling us.
And he would be partially incorrect. Just because someone put limitations on it in the early days, doesn't mean they were not running afoul of the Constitution and the Framers original intent. "Shall not be infringed" is really quite a simple thing to understand with a clear meaning, it's too bad almost everyone seems to have forgotten that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will watch it later, but his dicta from the bench is still bedeviling us.
The 1 thing he forgot to mention is that these rights are granted not by the constitution, it only reaffirms your rights, but by your creator, whoever you believe in or dont. These rights can not be given or taken by any other authority.
In related news, Notorious RBG has again threatened to not die any time soon.
Great idea!Anybody tried splashing some water on her?
Yep, and putting 'limits' on the 2nd Amendment is the most abused phase also.
Who is doing the limiting? By definition the general assembly's, state government nor congress sets the limit. The 9th and 10th Amendment guarantee rights given by our creator.
The fact is we cannot trust the courts to support and defend our liberty any more than we can trust congress or the president.
"All power in human hands is liable to be abused."
- James Madison
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
- James Madison
"Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law. Our Founding Fathers referred to Blackstone more than to any other English or American authority."