4 ms·

Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age. And don't say "because it's insane for k

by jfengel 11mo ago

Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age. And don't say "because it's insane for kids to buy deadly weapons" because that doesn't seem to figure into any other part of second amendment interpretation.

mothballed 11mo ago
That didn't happen until 1968 and by that time the constitution was basically toilet paper. The answer is ever since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) era the constitution was more of a guideline, occasionally quoted by judges much like you can quote the bible to support pretty much anything if you twist it enough.
- wqaatwt 11mo ago
  > since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) Wasn’t it the other way around? E.g. the fir amendment was pretty much ignored (barely a guideline) by everyone almost until the 1900s. Even the founders themselves discarded it almost entirely just a few years after the constitution was ratified..
etchalon 11mo ago
Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it. Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.
- mothballed 11mo ago
  True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed forces." If they could interpret the constitution and that was that, then the judicial branch would basically have ultimate power and be exempted from the checks the other branches have on them.
  - monocularvision 11mo ago
    They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."
      - etchalon 11mo ago
        The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.
        mothballed 11mo ago
        Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.
        etchalon 10mo ago
        The executive cannot ignore the court's interpretation on their own. Christ, are you in high school? This shit is covered in like sophomore year social studies.
        mothballed 10mo ago
        OK so the court can then simply declare an "interpretation" of impeachment that makes it impossible, or meaningless then, or perhaps also interprets any such jailing by the executive as illegal. Since they are the ones that get to decide what the text written in the constitution actually is interpreted to mean and apparently their "interpretation" cannot be ignored.
- immibis 11mo ago
  IIRC didn't the courts empower themselves to interpret the constitution? Nothing in the constitution says they can. Of course, since they interpret the constitution, they can just insert an interpretation that says they interpret the constitution...
  - FergusArgyll 11mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
  - dnautics 11mo ago
    yes. IMO one can argue that it was a very reasonable pragmatic decision that set a questionable precedent for branches of the government creating powers for themselves out of whole cloth. There is a LOT of commentary in intellectual circles that hail Marbury v. Madison as some sort of genius decision, and it's quite frankly horrifying.

by jfengel 11mo ago

mothballed 11mo ago

That didn't happen until 1968 and by that time the constitution was basically toilet paper. The answer is ever since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) era the constitution was more of a guideline, occasionally quoted by judges much like you can quote the bible to support pretty much anything if you twist it enough.

wqaatwt 11mo ago
> since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) Wasn’t it the other way around? E.g. the fir amendment was pretty much ignored (barely a guideline) by everyone almost until the 1900s. Even the founders themselves discarded it almost entirely just a few years after the constitution was ratified..

etchalon 11mo ago

Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it. Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.

mothballed 11mo ago
True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed forces." If they could interpret the constitution and that was that, then the judicial branch would basically have ultimate power and be exempted from the checks the other branches have on them.
- monocularvision 11mo ago
  They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.
  - mothballed 11mo ago
    The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."
    - etchalon 11mo ago
      The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.
      - mothballed 11mo ago
        Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.
        etchalon 10mo ago
        The executive cannot ignore the court's interpretation on their own. Christ, are you in high school? This shit is covered in like sophomore year social studies.
        mothballed 10mo ago
        OK so the court can then simply declare an "interpretation" of impeachment that makes it impossible, or meaningless then, or perhaps also interprets any such jailing by the executive as illegal. Since they are the ones that get to decide what the text written in the constitution actually is interpreted to mean and apparently their "interpretation" cannot be ignored.
immibis 11mo ago
IIRC didn't the courts empower themselves to interpret the constitution? Nothing in the constitution says they can. Of course, since they interpret the constitution, they can just insert an interpretation that says they interpret the constitution...
- FergusArgyll 11mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
- dnautics 11mo ago
  yes. IMO one can argue that it was a very reasonable pragmatic decision that set a questionable precedent for branches of the government creating powers for themselves out of whole cloth. There is a LOT of commentary in intellectual circles that hail Marbury v. Madison as some sort of genius decision, and it's quite frankly horrifying.