Clearly this person is an expert in constitutional law, all the modern scholarship that provides powerful evidence that he’s wrong be damned. I should also note that Justice Scalia has to get four other justices to agree with him in order for his opinion to be the majority opinion. Dave Hardy, who is a real expert in these matters, talks about possible methods of interpretation in Heller here.
9 thoughts on “Setting the Record Wrong”
Comments are closed.
He’s such an expert that he proceeded to tell us the meaning of the Court’s holding in Miller without quoting it or even reading the decision.
He just trots out the old “Miller supports a collective right” without any citation to backup his claim.
“The militia also comes up early on in the Constitution, in Article I laying out the powers of the legislative branch. It says Congress has the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Anyone who has read a newspaper or caught broadcast news has seen all of those actions carried out by an armed force controlled by the states. Those armed entities are universally called the National Guard.
Since those opposed to gun control do so by rejecting the need, or even the existence of a militia these modern days, another section of the main body of the Constitution, the part laying out the powers of the executive branch, i.e., the president is relevant.”
This means that any able-bodied citizen can be appointed an Officer to lead an organized group of other able-bodied citizens, to do what is asked of them by the POTUS; or against the government if the citizenry has just cause to revolt against a tyrannical government.
The National Guard is a branch of the government’s military, who are PAID by the government for what they do, just as any branch of military are paid. The National Guard are issued weapons by the government. The militia’s arms are provided by the very people who make up the militia. That’s why that clause in in there: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If only the military has the right to keep and bear arms, it would have stated that as such, but it didn’t. Also if only the military has that right, we wouldn’t be a free society, now would we? The military, being employees of the government will do what said government tells them to do. Who’s going to keep the government in check if only the government has to power?
The guy’s an idiot.
Correction:…has too much power?”
I think they probably have their bags packed and are ready to split when their version of the 2nd is released.
hi folks. i understand you guys are taking straightrecord’s name in vain. i know you’re all anxious about the scotus decision yet this week or monday about d.c. v heller. the opinion probably already is written and headed to the printers, so patience. the delay probably was caused by a split decision leading to a plurality opinion on the overall ruling, but perhaps a majority on only one esoteric aspect of the argument. or not.
now as to the miller precedent. i have seen your interpretation so often, i must assume your gun organizations keep telling you miller does not deny the individual right to bear arms just to make you feel good.
the fact is, the miller case upheld restrictions on carrying a sawed-off shotgun based on the power of a state to maintain a militia, as that power is stated in the article 1, section 8, as stated in the portion of the straightrecord piece cited above by one of the other bloggers here.
the miller case was not ground-breaking, it merely confirmed all of the previous scotus opinions about gun-control. the scotus precedents are unanimous in tying the right to restrict arms to a state’s power to maintain a militia.
if scalia, as a self-proclaimed originalist, goes against that string of precedents, ending with the miller decision, he would be guilty of hypocrisy. if he does not, he will be guilty of hypocrisy by also claiming to be a conservative. as the piece said, it is a conundrum of his own making.
if a militia, outside of its current existence as the national guard, is not an entity such as those that existed at the time of the revolution, so be it. but the constitution says the power to maintain and regulate a militia gives states the power to control the possession of guns. whether that interpretation and the precedents upholding it are to be maintained or dumped is the subject that could be decided by d.c. v heller. but scotus has the extreme talent of muddying the waters with imprecise conclusions. stay tuned and thank you for visiting.
the fact is, the miller case upheld restrictions on carrying a sawed-off shotgun based on the power of a state to maintain a militia, as that power is stated in the article 1, section 8, as stated in the portion of the straightrecord piece cited above by one of the other bloggers here.
Uh, wrong. Miller absolutely didn’t affirmatively uphold the constitutionality of restrictions on carrying a sawed-off shotgun. Rather, it reversed and remanded a district court decision holding those restrictions unconstitutional, because the Court couldn’t take judicial notice of whether a sawed-off shotgun was the type of weapon that would be useful in a militia context.
the scotus precedents are unanimous in tying the right to restrict arms to a state’s power to maintain a militia.
Again, wrong. The pre-Miller precedents are silent on the question.
if scalia, as a self-proclaimed originalist, goes against that string of precedents, ending with the miller decision, he would be guilty of hypocrisy.
Do you get tired of being wrong? Even assuming we lived in some alternate dimension where the weight of Supreme Court precedent was on the “collective right” side of the argument, originalism defers to constitutional text ahead of stare decesis. It’s not hypocrisy for an originalist to jettison precedent that incorrectly interprets the underlying constitutional text.
The piece, and your post here, reflect a hilarious ignorance of the law, history, and originalism. I think I hear your mommy telling you to get off the computer, now.
“now as to the miller precedent. i have seen your interpretation so often, i must assume your gun organizations keep telling you miller does not deny the individual right to bear arms just to make you feel good.
the fact is, the miller case upheld restrictions on carrying a sawed-off shotgun based on the power of a state to maintain a militia, as that power is stated in the article 1, section 8, as stated in the portion of the straightrecord piece cited above by one of the other bloggers here.
the miller case was not ground-breaking, it merely confirmed all of the previous scotus opinions about gun-control. the scotus precedents are unanimous in tying the right to restrict arms to a state’s power to maintain a militia.”
– Don’t presume to tell me that my interpretation of Miller has been told to me by the “gun organizations” to “make me feel good.” My interpretation of Miler is based on the PLAIN TEXT OF THE DECISION. You know, actually reading the decision might help you interpret it correctly.
I refer you to my post regarding Miller. The quotes in bold come directly from the Court’s ruling. I suggest you read the actual decision.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/
if-i-hear-this-one-more-time-im-going.html
Sorry link is as follows
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-i-hear-this-one-more-time-im-going.html
i’m not a member of any gun organizations. what tells me U.S. v. Miller does not deny that individual right is, um, reading that decision.
if the 1939 Supreme Court had wanted to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms, it would have been simple enough; reverse and remand due to Miller having no standing, if he had no individual right to arms. that is not what they did, however. they went into bickering about what kind of arms he might have had a right to, based on what might or might not be useful to a militiaman, but any such debate logically presupposes he had some right.
a great deal was FUBAR with the Miller decision — Miller’s counsel not being present to argue his case, just for starters — but it certainly did not argue against an individual right to arms. it easily could have, and did not.