It could be from anytime since this crap started. Or next year.
1 Like
You and Samm against the judicial system going back hundreds of years…good luck!
Sounds to me like you are fine with violating the Constitution based on the concept that it has successfully (in the view of the violators) been violated before. One has to wonder, what good is the Constitution if the Courts allow it to be violated for causes deemed “necessary” and/or “reasonable” by the government. Do I have that right?
2 Likes
No, we are against the Court justifying erroneous rulings in the present by basing them on erroneous rulings in the past.
1 Like
I am reminded of Don Quixote.
It’s not that weird. Every amendment has caveats. Every amendment has been interpreted by the Courts since the beginning. None of them are absolute.
Yeah. It makes sense that you would resort to fictional characters to try to make a point.
You have yet to cite any caveats to the Constitution. Just like continual repetition if a lie does not make it true, your repetition of that term does not make it real.
It’s gonna happen, and soon: New York State Rifle and Pistol v. Bruen is being heard on Wednesday, which means Constitutional carry will be the law of the land come May.
The Constitution is interpreted by justices because many things are not explicitly spelled out.
Let’s look at obscenity laws. Up until the 50s, many publications and materials could be banned and outlawed by local jurisdictions. Howl by Alan Ginsburg comes to mind. A judge ruled that Ginsburg’s 1st amendment rights were violated and after that far more “obscene” material was allowed.
Prior to that ruling, there was a caveat to the 1st amendment that did not allow for public obscene material. After that ruling, that caveat was curtailed. The Constitution is interpreted by justices. Some rulings you may like. Some I may like. That’s the system we are in.
But this is all common sense. What are you trying to get at?
True. Court rulings morph. They should be very pleased with this ruling. And maybe unhappy with other rulings. That’s how it goes with the judicial branch.
But Trump took steps to stop these caravans and wholesale breaching of our border. Biden is taking steps to block all successful steps and created the Biden surge, which continues. That is Biden’s fault in full.
1 Like
I have been perfectly clear on what I’m getting at. Past transgression do not bless transgressions in the present.
Since the libs want to argue the SC infallible (when it suits them) You should ask them if the SC was correct in their Plessy vs Ferguson ruling in 1896. 
Right- you don’t agree with past court rulings. Join the club.
Never said infallible. Plenty of rulings I hate. Some I like. I’m guessing we agree on that.
What I dont agree on is that there is always some obvious absolute truth imparted by the Constitution which can only be interpreted one way to be correct.
By the way Plessy v Fergusson is a great example of an interpretation of the Constitition that I think most people today would think sucks.
But back then it wasn’t controversial amongst most people. Well…white people.
Times change.
That is not the point. Even the rulings state those laws they upheld were infringements.
You call past rulings “transgressions”. I call them…rulings you don’t like.
What in the 2nd Amendment is “not spelled out”?
