3 ms·
Right. If you ignore some 200 years of jurisprudence, you might have a point.
by 0xfeba 10y ago
Right. If you ignore some 200 years of jurisprudence, you might have a point.
- EdHominem 10y agoWell yeah, if it wasn't constitutional it should be ignored. The courts can't make something constitutional.
- 0xfeba 10y ago> The courts can't make something constitutional. That's literally what they do. They determine if executive or legislative branch actions are constitutional or not.
- EdHominem 10y agoNo, they can declare that the government shall currently act as if X is constitutional (or not). They interpret the constitution, not write it.
- deadfece 10y agoIn the present day, civilians own tanks, cannons, rocket launchers, grenades, machine guns, explosives, etc. This has largely been the case for 200 plus years. If we ignore the some 200 years of jurisprudence supporting that ownership, then what?
- 0xfeba 10y agoThen we can reinterpret it to mean "human arms", as opposed to legs. I mean, the courts have the final say in what the US Constitution says, so just rattling off "the constitution says X!!!" like it means one thing but ignoring the years and years of case law meaning something else (and what's actually enforced) is just being naive.