Does Citizens United rank as one of the worst decisions of any SCOTUS?

[SmarterthanYou]

Been down this umpteen times, you know the Founders employed commas for a reason, I don’t think you understand what a prefatory and operative clause is

it's the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founding fathers would craft an amendment guaranteeing ONLY a government regulated entity to keep and bear arms after having won independence from a government that tried to take their arms.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Been down this umpteen times, you know the Founders employed commas for a reason, I don’t think you understand what a prefatory and operative clause is

Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this multiple times?

Also, the Constitution is to limit the Federal government, not impose restrictions on the unalienable rights of citizens.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

View attachment 40560

The new motto of the DOGE is "Hold my Starbucks Latte and watch this!"

 

[archives]

Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this multiple times?

Also, the Constitution is to limit the Federal government, not impose restrictions on the unalienable rights of citizens.

No, Scalia set the precedent in Heller when he opinionated that because no one nor any Court could ever define the intent of the prefatory clause they could skip over it

 

[archives]

it's the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founding fathers would craft an amendment guaranteeing ONLY a government regulated entity to keep and bear arms after having won independence from a government that tried to take their arms.

That’s funny given just yesterday the Trump SCOTUS ruled that Tic Toc could be banned, seems freedom of speech is regulated, proving once again, rights are not absolute

And if your arguement for the 2nd Amendment were valid why would they even include the prefatory clause, not just go with “the right of the people to keep and near arms shall not be infringed”

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, Scalia set the precedent in Heller when he opinionated that because no one nor any Court could ever define the intent of the prefatory clause they could skip over it

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one online like Sybil and Terry so I go by results: the results are gun control hasn't substantively changed since the expiration of Clinton's gun ban.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That’s funny given just yesterday the Trump SCOTUS ruled that Tic Toc could be banned, seems freedom of speech is regulated, proving once again, rights are not absolute

And if your arguement for the 2nd Amendment were valid why would they even include the prefatory clause, not just go with “the right of the people to keep and near arms shall not be infringed”

this shows your clear lack of understanding about the Constitutional powers and laws.........

banning tik tok is not banning free speech, but an exercise of the power of congress to regulate commerce.

you've also been schooled about militias and the right of the people many times...............all with historical context. you simply refuse to accept that you're wrong.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[Diogenes]

that seems like a poor take.

should we repeal it then if has no impact?

you good with that?

You think stare decisis can be repealed?

 

[archives]

this shows your clear lack of understanding about the Constitutional powers and laws.........

banning tik tok is not banning free speech, but an exercise of the power of congress to regulate commerce.

you've also been schooled about militias and the right of the people many times...............all with historical context. you simply refuse to accept that you're wrong.

Oh, so I guess the Court is fine then with censoring as long as it conforms to Congresses power to regulate commerce

There exist zero understanding of the prefatory clause, the militia insert, you can quote all the Heritage opinions you want, but even the SCOTUS has been baffled

I’m not refusing anything, just repeating the facts, no Constitutional right is absolute, they are all regulated