Oma Mua

Ainehistoja livvinkarjalan murtehella

Разделы каталогаArhiivaРазделы каталога2013Разделы каталогаnumero 14Объекты каталогаKešätapahtumat Vienašša КомментарийRe: Kešätapahtumat Vienašša Основные параметрыПоле H1Re: Kešätapahtumat Vienašša Свойства комментарияСообщениеWhy shluod a court shluod consider the will of the majority when restricting gun rights but not when upholding the law protecting traditional marriage? The answer seems a simple one: No rights are absolute. For instance, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the case District of Columbia v. Heller while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being constitutional. The court held that [l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, shluod not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. As to marriage, the same principal applies except that there are no federal restrictions on marriage, as with hand guns. Marriage is a fundamental right under federal law, and the states simply do not have the right to regulate marriage in a manner that violates the ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ provisions of the 14th Amendment. Ergo marriage is not a ‘states’ rights’ issue. Authority? Loving v. Virginia! It is therefore idiotic for politicians (especially Obama!) to claim sensitivity to the issue (citing Loving and his own parents’ marriage) at the same time they trash the substance of that decision by arguing the very ‘states’ rights’ argument that very decision struck down. The best answer from Goodwin Liu (awfully young to be sitting on the 9th Circuit) shluod have been taken from the late Justice Robert H. Jackson who wrote, The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to PLACE THEM BEYOND THE REACH OF MAJORITIES AND OFFICIALS and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED TO VOTE; THEY DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF NO ELECTIONS.Дата публикацииMon, 22 Dec 2014 15:01:31 +0300Автор