I just finished reading the majority decision of Chief Justice Roberts, all the concurring opinions and Justice Thomas' dissent in United States v. Rahimi where the Court upheld by an 8-1 vote a Federal law that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic restraining order from possessing a firearm. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
While it's amusing to read Roberts chiding some lower courts for reading Bruen in exactly the way its author, Justice Thomas, insists he intended (and he did and they did), the case continues to show that "originalist" justices don't have a clue about the Framers idea of rights.
First off, reading the Constitution to ascertain the Framers' intent (though that isn't really what originalists do) is generally acceptable as to the mechanics of government that were put in place. That's what was "constituted"; a new government subject to the rules put in place in the document.
But as every one of the justices knows, rights, even the ones specifically mentioned in the first ten amendments, pre-existed the Constitution. Documents couldn't create rights according to the Founders and Framers; they were "natural" and endowed to every person by their "Creator" (though a specific or any God is not necessary).
So even if we could actually know what specifically the Framers thought were the limits of enumerated rights, why should we be bound by them just because the Bill of Rights was added later to try to grab a few votes in a couple of State ratification conventions (the Framers themselves at the Constitutional Convention rejected the idea of a Bill of Rights as unnecessary and possibly dangerous)? Why should we look to language in the Constitution to define these rights when they existed whatever the authors of the BOR wrote?
An honest appraisal of Natural Rights has to be made not only based on what the Framers may or may not have thought their limits were, but on what advanced scientific knowledge and the experience of 230+ years have revealed to us. To the extent that the SCOTUS continues to use a theory which has no Constitutional basis or any indication that the Framers' philosophy mandated or even allowed it, they are rejecting original intent, not being true to it.
@no1marauder saidIf you think 'natural rights' means that 51% can force a medical experiment on the other 49% you're the one that doesn't understand natural rights. In fact 99.9% do not have a 'natural right' to force .1% to take part in their medical experiment.
You've never understood Natural Rights theory and you never will.
@Wajoma saidLike I said, you don't know the difference between a "right" and a "power" (a legitimate power in the case you are obliquely referring to - the power to protect the People from deadly, contagious diseases).
If you think 'natural rights' means that 51% can force a medical experiment on the other 49% you're the one that doesn't understand natural rights. In fact 99.9% do not have a 'natural right' to force .1% to take part in their medical experiment.
@no1marauder saidWhat I truly don’t comprehend, is why people think that this group of framers created something set in stone.
I just finished reading the majority decision of Chief Justice Roberts, all the concurring opinions and Justice Thomas' dissent in United States v. Rahimi where the Court upheld by an 8-1 vote a Federal law that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic restraining order from possessing a firearm. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
While it's a ...[text shortened]... s' philosophy mandated or even allowed it, they are rejecting original intent, not being true to it.
What? Were these folk super heroes? Demi-Gods?
To me it feels the same as the Hadiths in Islam: interpretations set in stone a long time ago, and agreed that it can’t be changed.
What sort of madness is it?
240 years ago there were no machine guns, no anti-biotics, no wifi, no cars…
How can rules that applied to a civilization just about crawling out of the middle-ages, have any resonance on modern society?
A mere example: the power afforded the executive is something drawn up in crisis or rebellion, when swift decision making is paramount.
In normal situations, one would rather diminish the power of the executive and have it bound by the elected houses.
A deming cycle (PDCA) is a good thing. And frequent checking and readjustments should also be part of law.
@wildgrass saidI've heard Libertarians use this quip many times.
Don't forget about those libertarians diligently plotting to take over the world so they can leave me alone.
You're getting it.
@Suzianne saidBut I don't back trump Miss Suzi-my flaps are so big I can pull them up and tie them around my neck like a scarf-Kant.
If you back Trump, this is exactly what you want.
Or, more accurately, you want the 49% to have the power to control the 51%.
And I don't want 49% to control 51%, or 99% to control 1%, or 23.7% to control the other so many %, none of those and no other combination you can dream up. All humans everywhere have the same rights, we have them because of what we are not because of some accident of birth we were born on one side of an arbitrary line in the dirt known as a border, and regardless of your percentage game.
@Suzianne
Right, 49%. Magites want to control the SEVENTY percent with 30%. or control the 90% with 10%.
They HATE even the IDEA of democracy and will do anything in their power to kill democracy everywhere they find it, like what is happening right now in France and what will happen if Project 2025 and Trump win out in November.
The US will become another banana republic with a huge military, a wet dream for fascists.