4 ms·
The 2nd amendment already has interpretation questions around the first half -- the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
by Shank 5y ago
The 2nd amendment already has interpretation questions around the first half -- the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," clause. It could go in any number of directions, from expanding "arms" to include "digital arms" to reducing the right only to "as part of a well regulated militia." See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
But I wouldn't bet money on the right expanding beyond firearms any time soon, given the glacial pace of constitutional law review.
- rootusrootus 5y ago> given the glacial pace of constitutional law review OTOH, the SCOTUS has achieved a political supermajority and will probably move much faster with policy changes now.
- butlerm 5y agoThe Supreme Court does not make policy, at most it stops other branches from making certain kind of policies, when presented an opportunity to do so when resolving an actual case or controversy.
- drocer88 5y ago"does not" or "should not" ?
- monocasa 5y agoStopping certain forms of policy and not others is a way to make policy.
- ipaddr 5y agoShape policy but not make policy.
- monocasa 5y agoShaping policy is making policy, practically.
- ipaddr 5y agoShaping material given happens at the end after the material is formed. A judge answers the question someone else asks. They can deny policy based on existing policy.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y agoOur current Supreme Court is creating policy from whole cloth while entirely ignoring precedent, and the text of law as a flagrant act of partisan pandering in their recent vax || test ruling.
- monocasa 5y agoNot to mention the "states can break constitutional protections by simply paying third parties in civil suits" thing.
- gowld 5y agoSCOTUS can also roll back existing policy. The power to flip a bit is effectively power to make policy.
- duskwuff 5y agoNot autonomously. The Supreme Court can only hear cases which are brought to it -- it cannot "make policy" in the absence of a relevant case.
- whatshisface 5y agoThe SC receives an enormous number of cases most of which it declines to hear. It has a lot of authority over what is brought before it.
- sjg007 5y agoArms vs weapons of mass destruction? Digital arms could fall into the latter category.
- x3n0ph3n3 5y ago"A healthy breakfast, being necessary for a productive day, the right to eat eggs shall not be infringed" Would you interpret _that_ as meaning we could only eat eggs for breakfast?
- winstonewert 5y agoNo, but the supreme court might if it served their interests.
- enkid 5y agoIt could be interpreted that it'd be ok to ban eggs in other circumstances, certainly. The problem is that it's meaning is so ambiguous that you can't properly tell, especially when considering the arms they had at the time of writing were completely different from what we consider arms these days. If the founders said the right to eat eggs is not to be infringes, would that mean the government would be unable to regulate genetically modified eggs? I don't think so.