20 years would be 10 congressional terms.
Breyer recommends term limits for Supreme Court.
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
20 years would be 10 congressional terms.
Mr.Badguy
Super lefty
If you knew ahead time, the year a Justice would be forced to retire, ... then presidential elections would become proxy Scotus elections.
Term limits would, in fact, make Scotus more political.
Leftist Breyer, himself, is so political ... that he chose to retire when he did ... to maintain a "political balance" in the court.
We already know that doesn't matter to conservatives. They bitched about Obama trying to appoint a judge in an election year, then had Trump do it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that is incorrect. there was a colonial army. Also, many pieces of historical documentation denote the founders FEAR of a standing army as a bane to liberty, thus the individual right to keep and bear shall not be infringed.
the 'militia' was comprised of all the people, save a few elected officials.
BidenPresident
Verified User
No standing army existed.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
it's not meaningless. the militia was the people. they needed to be 'well regulated', which in the founders era, meant to be well trained and armed. That well regulated militia was to be a check on a standing army, that the people would always retain their state of freedom.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Again, "well regulated" are random words, eh?!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are wrong, as usual.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no. 'well regulated' meant well armed and trained. the founders considered their new central government a necessary evil, that standing armies were a bane to liberty, that to retain their state of freedom, the people needed to be as well trained and as well armed as any standing army
They didn't. The words are the reason why...
In order to believe that it only applied to the militia you would have to pretend that every time they mentioned the people they meant individuals, except this one time... this time, it was different they just weren't careful and just randomly put in "the people" when they meant the militia... this time when they said the right was for the people they really only meant folks that were in the militia, not really "the people" they just worded it badly this one time...
Had it only applied to militia members it would say, "so that the government can call up a militia, the members of the militia will have a right to own and bear arms"... Instead what it says in today's English is... "Since the government can call up an armed militia against the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by any law passed by congress."
The SCOTUS ruled that it was an individual right and they ruled that it was an incorporated right, so that now extends to the states and any form of government in these United States because of the 14th Amendment...
BidenPresident
Verified User
Regulated and armed are not cognates.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Nifty did the cat get your tongue?
BidenPresident
Verified User
Sunsets are pretty, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is better,eh?
ExpressLane
Verified User
Militias typically are made up of citizens that own their own weapons.
Again, the sentence structure isn't difficult. It lists the reason for the amendment (because the government can call up an armed militia), then tells you the right of the people to go with the reason (the people have the right to arm themselves and the government cannot pass laws to take it from them).
The basic premise that the beginning doesn't associate is only based on the wishes and imaginations of leftists who don't want to believe that "the people" meant the same thing every single time it was mentioned in the Constitution.
Had they begun with 'Because sunsets are pretty and government buildings are tall' the ending would have related to that... 'the right of the people to view sunsets cannot be infringed upon by tall government buildings'... something like that.
the people would still mean what it meant every time it was used...
BidenPresident
Verified User
Either "well regulated militia" is essential to the amendment or the whole thing is incoherent.
Last edited:
Back then the army was made up largely of that same thing... most government didn't have standing armies, they called them up.
It is essential, it is the reason for the Amendment.
Because the government can call up a militia... the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
The trouble you have is you just really really really don't want "the people" to mean what it means, so you close your eyes and cover your ears and say "I can't hear you!" loudly... your problem is not that you cannot understand the sentence structure, it is that you don't like what it means.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, what did the framers mean by regulated? they meant well equipped and trained. their own writings bear this out. they wanted to ensure that their new government would never be able to tyrannize them because they would be able to effectively resist.
BidenPresident
Verified User
The National Guard is a well regulate militia. That's it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
did the national guard exist in the minds of the framers when the people ratified the 2nd Amendment?