rebelwidacoz Loc: Illinois

.....and that is rulings based individual amendments as to rulings based on the preamble of the constitution which states and defines what the constitution endeavors to do; this is to afford its citizens as much liberty as it possibly can keeping in mind any liberty afforded must be consistent with the preamble and must not have a profound affect so as to not effect it's national security nor a bridge the premises of which the country was founded upon - and that is those ideals of liberty and democracy
The Preamble which states synopsisly speaking- We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union,establish justice,insure domestic tranquility,provide for the common defense,promote for the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to our selves and our posterity do ordain and establish the constitution for the United States of.........
This is the guidelines the supreme court should be using in order to Interpret what is constitutional and what is not - is what ever issue they are litigating consistent with the preamble and not each individual amendment,which specifically list individual rights it's citizens have,the preamble is a generalization of what the constitution attempts to do ( can't very list every right the people may have ,now could they) they never could have finished writing it could they - this afforded the Repubicans a chance to quip " it's not in the constitution,let's adhere to States Rights,ignoring the Idea that federal rights usurps states Rights, and not keeping mind when giving the states such leaways like Alito wants do,they stymied the whole concept of What America was supposed to for.and that was liberty and justice achieved via a democracy for all.To not use the preamble and cite individual amendments to determine whether not some issue was constitutional or not was puredy unadulterated folly.
Clarence Thomases take on their recent ruling of a******n rights ,was ,UGH !!!??.
- he says something to the affect that every thing synonymous the a******ns laws should be reviewed on their individual basis. I say if that is to be done then every ruling that has been interpreted by all supreme court's should be reviewed- do to the fact that it is or is not in the constitution- case in point is the second amendment.Individual gone owner ship is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION! .M*****a is plural as oppose to singular,the word people connotes a plurality ,not a singularity- and this is due to the fact that instead of using the preamble to judge whether an idea is consistent with the law of the land and adhereds to philosophies of the land ,they look at each individual 27 amendments,don't see that particular aspect of what they are debating and claim "IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION! , Instead of trying to INTERPRET! is it consistent with the preamble, that explains who and what the United States is and what it is about.

Liberty Tree

Your post is complete nonsense. According to you the entire Constitution should be thrown out except the preamble. The amendments to you are a burden especially the Bill of Rights. The preamble states the general goals but the rest of the Constitution sets the parameters under which those will be obtained and the limits on government to protect the rights of the people. The tenth amendment exist for a reason whether you want it or not. The SCOTUS exists to insure the other two branches of government and the country as a whole follow those parameters.

rebelwidacoz Loc: Illinois

It figures - people such as you ,are obstinate, stubborn,non- negotiable and just plain ole' your way ,or if not that, just the plain ole' the profiteering ,greedy ass tollway

Liberty Tree

I guess you say that about the founding fathers who established the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us from people like you.

Smedley_buzkill

Sophistry is not your forte. Individual gun ownership most definitely IS in the Constitution. If you possessed even a modicum of research sk**ls you would reference the comments of the men who WROTE the Second Amendment. There is no doubt they acknowledged this to be a natural right, and the purpose of the entire Bill of Rights is not to grant rights, (which cannot be granted; that makes them privileges), but to place limits on governmental infringement of those rights. Throughout history, m*****as have kept their own weapons in their homes. Had you bothered to check the United States Code, (you HAVE heard of that, haven't you?) you would have found the definition of m*****a under US law. Had you bothered to read the Federalist papers, (you know, those guys that WROTE the Amendments?) you would have found that they intended this as an individual right, period. Had you paid attention in English class you would realize that the first part of the Second Amendment is what is known as a prefatory clause, (today's assignment, look it up yourself) and gives A reason, not THE ONLY reason, for private gun ownership.
Using your warped logic of "people" being a "plurality" rather than a "singularity" you have no right to privacy, no Miranda rights, no protections against unreasonable search and seizure, no right to a speedy trial or to face your accusers in court, because these are all rights of "the people" and are a "plurality."

Turtle keeper

I sure am glad that you do not have the responsibility of being a Justice of the Supreme Court.
I don’t know how you come to the conclusion you do about the 2nd amendment. You should be thankful for the 2nd amendment. It keeps the i***ts left and right some what curtailed I do know that you do not proofread your comments.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

They try to protect from people like Trump, only time will tell if it's been successful.

Smedley_buzkill

You mean protect us from energy independence, low gas prices, a military that works, lowest black unemployment since records have been kept, more take home pay, affordable groceries, and all the other things we DON'T have since your boy the Senile S**tweasel and his sidekick Happy Endings Harris took office?

Smedley_buzkill

Now you went and did it. I doubt he even knows the words are misspelled, sentences run on, incorrect punctuation, and a host of other grammatical errors. This person could not pass a sixth grade English test when I was in school, and presumes to know more about the Constitution than the SCOTUS.

Liberty Tree

Today's Democrat Party is the major threat to our Republic. They prove it by their hatred of the Construction, especially the Bill of Rights, its abuse of power, and its selective prosecution.

Turtle keeper

Hahaha 🤣

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

Gun ownership is ok, but not everyone should have access to guns. The continued opposition to any regulations is wrong. Young 18 yr olds don't need AR-15 type weapons.

Tiptop789 Loc: State of Denial

A stupid reply.

rebelwidacoz Loc: Illinois

Maybe you are right , I'm confused,I thought the 93rd congress made it law and constitutional.Alito said it wasn't there though-and I thought it was the Supreme Courts job was to Interpret not legislate.I thought there was three branches of government ; the legislature,the judicial,and the executive branches.I thought the judicial branch ( specifically the supreme court was to Interpret) and not tell us anything so that we would follow them anywhere as if we were being herded like the Donald Trump as if we were children,and he ,the pied Piper.I was further confused when Alito says a******n rights was not in the constitution and individual gun rights is.

rebelwidacoz Loc: Illinois

and which amendment specifies that