While "originalism" is great in theory, it seems there is a little cherry picking going on - especially amongst our more right leaning posters.

If we take the position to its extreme, the Second Amendment protects our right to bear muskets, sabres, and hatchets. I think most hunters prefer an 'evolving' standard of the definition of "arms". The National "Rifle" Association would have a real problem, since the only rifle availble at the time was an experimental British model used by Patrick Ferguson (rumor has it he could have taken a "pot shot" at Washington during the Battle of Brandywine, but didn't). It would be damn hard to bag a deer with that weapon.

The USSC's "originalism" seems pretty selective to this layman. Perhaps our founders did intend to allow the state legislatures to disenfranchise voters, and perhaps George Washington would have preferred an executive that could suspend habeas corpus.

Perhaps being 'drawn and quartered' is neither cruel nor unusual.

Hmmmm....

Check your facts -- Scalia looks to BOTH original INTENT and the plain text.

Also doing as you say, and "taking the position to its extreme" is a "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

<link>

No evolving standard--arms are arms. and as you know were to be condoned not only as hunting tools, etc., but to keep the Government honest.

Balloon Secretary Dog Dude:

So, what's your point? (non sequiter?), there's a fine line between 'slippery slope' and reductio ad absurdum (or in your case, simple absurdum).

I could try and argue that presuming to comprehend the intent of men who died over 150 years ago is futile, presumptuous and, thus, quixotic; but, that would beg the question.

So, as a simple layman - someone without legal training - I put it to you (expert that you clearly are): a) Is it constitutional to suspend habeas corpus? b) Is it constitional to disenfranchise voters?

Lincoln did the former, and all the founders did the latter (you know, those black people called 'slaves').

So, was that okay? What would Madison do?

and West is West - so says Socrates1.

An atomic bomb is one of many 'arms', no?

I have the right to bear any 'arm', no?

Hence, I have the right to bear an atomic bomb, no? QED

(What would Scalia say?)

If you honestly believe, my dear ugly Greek fool, that you'll keep government 'honest' with your shotgun, God Bless you and all your posse commitas friends at tomorrow's Waco.

This whole article just has devolved down into repeating the same points in different threads. Bah. But, I'll answer your question to put it this way -- Where were the cases that ruled on the Constitutionality of those matters? And don't say "Dred Scott," because you gave the example of SLAVES wanting to vote, when there was no such case that came before the Court. Just because it was immoral to have a slave, not just preventing them from voting, doesn't mean that Judges were supposed to swoop in.

Here's your (perpetual) error -- you want Judges to swoop in and "fix stuff." You want them to "right the wrongs" even if no one is in Court ASKING them to do so via a good ol' "Case."

As was written (elsewhere in the Fray -- this is just too tiring and repetitive at this point, but one last time):

[You] appear to forget that a Supreme Court case or controversy is not a free-ranging search for legal truths; rather, a Supreme Court case presents a specific issue or set of issues, raised by the actual parties to an actual legal dispute, to be resolved for the purposes of their litigation and for subsequent cases involving the same legal issue.

See, the problem is that SOME people want Judges to have a case come before them, and the Judges should tie on a cape, perhaps flip a drumhead over, and just start "fixin' stuff and rightin' wrongs" then and there. Who cares what the case and parties are actually fighting over? Specifics? Bah!

An example of this was covered in Slate a couple of years ago. When colleges wanted to ban military recruiters but keep federal funds, you had posters (and others) here saying that the Supreme Court should use that case to allow Gays/Lesbians to openly serve in the military. Bollocks what the ACTUAL case was about, the damn judges should get to "fixin stuff" dammit!

In sum, spend less time wringing your hands, calling people who disagree with you "fools" and expecting Judges to come save you like Superman. Judges decide cases. When cases come before them, they apply laws, and if Constitutional challenges are raised, they consider those.

They don't just take the bench and pronounce stuff "Good or Bad."

Maybe the "Judge-by-Weathervane" judiciary members who will be appointed will start to do that, but I hope not. Standing up and bloviating is more the realm of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Have fun. Educating folks here isn't anymore, though. :-(

Oh Dear, you're hurt...my bad.

Socrates (the original one) prided himself on the epithet (try getting your facts straight.

But, you still haven't answered my questions, dogballoon, have you?

Perhaps once you've thought through the questions, you will educate me and remove the liberal activist judge veil from eyes.

Neither question was as remote as old Dred Scott, the Scalia cabal failed to find either suspending habeas corpus or disenfranchising voters unconstitutional.

What say you, deep legal scholar? This poor uneducated bloviator awaits your wisdom.....

Yes, I'm waiting oh sage of logic and precedent - do tell.

Holy crap, you really are an idiot, aren't you. I did answer your questions, and pointed out why your view is wrong. List the Supreme Court cases where Slavery was challenged, and Women came there seeking the right to vote. Oh, that's right, like I said, THEY DON'T EXIST. And yet you still want judges to swoop in and "fix stuff." But, I also went over why that view is stupid as well.

But please, you pink idiot, compare yourself to Socrates more. Oh, and because something isn't "fun" hardly means I'm hurt. It means it's not productive to teach functional retards. Once again, you give yourself far, too much credit. Keep bleating, I'm sure your imaginary internet friends love it.

You fail at reading comprehension. Epic fail, in fact.

By the way, in case you (still) don't get the point -- EVERY question you asked, you wanted to know if it was "wrong" (suspension of habeas, slavery, women being denied the right to vote, etc.).

And the answer remains -- show me where a case came up to the Supreme Court on that question. But you still don't get it. Judges decide cases. You might like someone to sit on a cabal and pronounce things "right" and "wrong" (they have that, it's called the Taliban), but here in the U.S., we need a case.

Maybe you should rename your ID to "Sweet Polly Purebred" -- you sure do seem like you're in need of "saving" by a big strong judge (with a cape, I guess?). That, or call yourself "Tess Trueheart" -- this way you can radio for a judge to pronounce stuff wrong even if they're not asked.

;-)

I say not what the Consitution should say, I say what it says.

So then Socrates1, do I have a right to bear an atomic weapon?

No you haven't Balloon Boy...

Is disenfranchising voters constititutional or not?

Is suspending habeas corpus constitutional or not?

All it requires is a yes or no answer, I don't need precedent, I'm not asking for your rant...

Just "yes" or "no" ...

So tell me Luv.