PROOF SUPREME COURT CERTIFIES ROSELL A DUMMY

[larry zeleznik]

Dave,
You are casting your Pearls before the Swine. You are trying to communicate with a single celled pond life.
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:kleqvsov7hv9vg1os...@4ax.com...
> The Supreme Court decided two cases in 1990 which contribute to an
> understanding of these issues. First, in United States v.
> Verdugo-Urquidez,[6] a Fourth Amendment case, the Court made clear
> that all law-abiding Americans are protected by the Second Amendment
> as follows:
>
> "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts
> of the Constitution.... The Second Amendment protects "the right of
> the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments
> provide that certain rights and powers are retained by (p.133)and
> reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., amend. I, ("Congress
> shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably
> to assemble"); U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of
> Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year
> by the People of the several States")(emphasis added). While this
> textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the
> people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
> Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth
> and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a
> national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient
> connection with this country to be considered part of that
> community.[7]
>
> In his dissent, Justice Brennan argued even more broadly that "the
> term 'the people' is better understood as a rhetorical counterpoint
> 'to the government,' such that rights that were reserved to 'the
> people' were to protect all those subject to 'the government'... 'The
> people' are 'the governed.'"[8] Justice Brennan also reviewed the
> drafting history of the Fourth Amendment, noting that the Framers
> "[c]ould have limited the right to 'citizens,' 'freemen,' 'residents,'
> or the 'American people.' ... Throughout that entire process, no
> speaker or commentator, pro or con, referred to the term 'the people'
> as a limitation."[9] Similarly, the Framers could have limited the
> Second Amendment right to select state militias, but instead used the
> terms "the people."
>
> Finally, Justice Brennan pointed out that rights are not "given to the
> people from the government.... [T]he Framers of the Bill of Rights did
> not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of
> Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties
> presumed to be pre-existing."[10] This statement is particularly
> applicable to the right to keep and bear arms, which has been
> recognized as a personal right for centuries.[11]
>
> The second 1990 Supreme Court opinion has relevance to the
> twentieth-century argument that the Second Amendment protects only the
> "right" of a state to maintain a militia, and that the "militia" is
> restricted to the National Guard. In Perpich v. Department of
> Defense,[12] the Court recognized that the National Guard is part of
> the Armed Forces of the United States and that the (p.134)Reserve
> Militia includes all able-bodied citizens.[13]
>
> The issue was whether the Militia Clause allowed the President to
> order members of the National Guard to train outside the United States
> without the consent of a state governor or the declaration of a
> national emergency.[14] Perhaps the most noteworthy fact about the
> opinion was its failure to mention the Second Amendment at all, that
> Amendment being irrelevant to the issue of the state power to maintain
> a militia. In fact, the Court referred to the state power over the
> militia as being recognized only in "the text of the Constitution, "
> not in any amendment:
>
> Two conflicting themes, developed at the Constitutional Convention and
> repeated in debates over military policy during the next century, led
> to a compromise in the text of the Constitution and in later statutory
> enactments. On the one hand, there was a widespread fear that a
> national standing Army posed an intolerable threat to individual
> liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate States, while, on the
> other hand, there was a recognition of the danger of relying on
> inadequately trained soldiers as the primary means of providing for
> the common defense. Thus, Congress was authorized both to raise and
> support a national army and also to organize "the Militia.[15]
>
> The Court then reviewed Congress' various militia enactments. The
> first, passed in 1792, provided that "every able-bodied male citizen
> between the ages of eighteen and forty-five be enrolled [in the
> militia] and equip himself with appropriate weaponry ...."[16] In
> 1903, new legislation "divided the class of able-bodied male citizens
> between eighteen and forty-five years of age into an 'organized
> militia' to be known as the National Guard of the several States, and
> the remainder of which was then described as the 'reserve militia,'
> and which later statutes have termed the 'unorganized militia.'"[17]
> Both of the above were passed under the Militia Clauses of the
> Constitution.[18]
>
> By contrast, in legislation dating to 1916, "the statute expressly
> provided that the Army of the United States should include not only
> 'the Regular Army,' but also 'the National Guard while in the service
> of the United States' ...."[19] (p.135)Today's National Guard came
> into being through exercise by Congress of the power to raise
> armies,[20] not the power to organize the militia.
>
> The Court referred to "the traditional understanding of the militia as
> a part-time, nonprofessional fighting force,"[21] and as "a body of
> armed citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in
> certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in
> time of peace."[22] The Court also recognized the existence of "all
> portions of the 'militia'--organized or not ...."[23]
>
> The Court concluded that "there is no basis for an argument that the
> federal statutory scheme deprives [a state] of any constitutional
> entitlement to a separate militia of its own."[24] The Court failed
> even to suggest that the Second Amendment had any bearing on the
> issue.
>
> In sum, it was clear enough to the Supreme Court in 1990 that "the
> people" in the Second Amendment means individuals generally, as it
> does in the rest of the Bill of Rights; that the "militia" means the
> body of armed citizens at large, organized and unorganized; and that
> the Second Amendment is not relevant to the power of a states to
> maintain the militia.
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[rose...@idt.net]

"larry zeleznik" <wawrz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote as ignorantly as possible

>Dave,
>You are casting your Pearls before the Swine.

Gee, nyuk,nyuk, nyuk, you raised your head out of his lap long enough
to "see" all that?

You actually believe pasting excerpts from case law actually
provides "proof" of his claim?

All you have to do is go to the American Bar Associations own website
for a fairly decent "reading" of the doctrine applied to 2nd amendment cases.

Since members of the ABA argue BOTH sides of the issue, the material certainly
isn't biased, but merely factual.

You forget, Nyuk, Nyuk.

Hazeloony is advocating a non-supportable position that I can rebut by merely
posting authoritative, established doctrine. He's reduced to attempting to
support "belief" (not doctrine/interpretation) with partial citations, slanted
material from biased sources.

The Bottom line is:

1. Congress CAN pass regulations relating to individuals right to weapons

2. Case law regarding the militia favors the National Government because of
historical nature of the interrelationship between federal and state authority
vis-a-vis militiary/militia.