Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 08, 2024

[Hawaii Supreme Court's] opinion emphasized the government's interest in reducing firearms violence and preserving peace and tranquility in Hawaii. This decision challenges the U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gun rights and has led to a debate on the balance between individual gun rights and public safety in the state.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

God, guns, and gays.

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-02-08 01:21 PM | Reply

Interesting idea. I hope it holds up on appeal.

Deafening silence from the state's rights crowd to follow.

#2 | Posted by qcp at 2024-02-08 01:55 PM | Reply


@#2 ... state's rights crowd ...


Constitutional Amendments " Amendment 10 " "Rights to the States or to the People"
www.reaganlibrary.gov

... Amendment Ten to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. It makes clear that any powers that are not specifically given to the federal government, nor withheld from the states, are reserved to those respective states, or to the people at large. The original text is written as such:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Similar to the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth originated from the debates surrounding the inclusion of a bill of rights to the new Constitution. Some argued that the Constitution was designed to make the new federal government limited in its scope, so that it would hypothetically be incapable of any infringements on the peoples' liberties.

This would render a bill of rights effectively unnecessary, and from the perspective of certain framers -- including Alexander Hamilton -- would make the implication that if a series of rights are plainly listed, then the federal government has powers to react to them, for better or worse. Many of the states ratified the Constitution with the impression that a bill of rights would quickly be added to it after the fact, as they were largely unconvinced by Federalist arguments.

When the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, the combined Ninth and Tenth Amendments specified that inferences about the peoples' rights in the former, and the powers of the federal government in the latter, were prohibited.

The Tenth Amendment has further been interpreted as a clarification of the federal government being largely limited and enumerated, and that a government decision is not to be investigated as a potential infringement of civil liberties, but rather as an overreach of its power and authority. ...



#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-02-08 06:47 PM | Reply

They don't like the 2nd amendment they can aloha right out of here. And aloha means goodbye.

#4 | Posted by THEBULL at 2024-02-09 06:12 AM | Reply

The Spirit of Aloha is peaceful? Somebody failed history class.

A summary of one of the dozens of known battles:

"The Battle of Nuuanu began when Kamehameha's forces landed on the southeastern portion of Oahu near Waialae and Waikiki. After spending several days gathering supplies and scouting Kalanikupule's positions, Kamehameha's army advanced westward, encountering Kalanikupule's first line of defense near the Punchbowl Crater. Splitting his army into two, Kamehameha sent one half in a flanking maneuver around the crater and the other straight at Kalanikupule. Pressed from both sides, the Oahu forces retreated to Kalanikupule's next line of defense near Laimi. While Kamehameha pursued, he secretly detached a portion of his army to clear the surrounding heights of the Nuuanu Valley of Kalanikupule's cannons. Kamehameha also brought up his own cannons to shell Laimi. During this part of the battle, both Kalanikupule and Kaiana were wounded, Kaiana fatally. With its leadership in chaos, the Oahu army slowly fell back north through the Nuuanu Valley to the cliffs at Nuuanu Pali. Caught between the Hawaiian Army and a 1000-foot drop, over 700 Oahu warriors either jumped or were pushed over the edge of the Pali (cliff). In 1898 construction workers working on the Pali road discovered 800 skulls which were believed to be the remains of the warriors that fell to their deaths from the cliff above."

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-09 08:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Before they had muskets and cannons, the Kao warriors fought with pahoa (big knives), leiomano (a wood club with sharks teeth blades), and the polulu (spears). For reasons everybody can easily recognize: resources and social disputes.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-09 08:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Posted by sitzkrieg

"You'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone,

For the times they are a changin'..."

#7 | Posted by Angrydad at 2024-02-09 10:39 AM | Reply

It's nice they stopped killing each other after the white man subjugated them, but lets not get revisionist about their violence.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-09 10:40 AM | Reply

#5 Nobody claimed the Spirit of Aloha means no Hawaiian has ever engaged in violence before. Try reading the court's opinion before spouting off. They had several non-spiritual reasons for telling SCOTUS to go F itself.

#9 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-09 10:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Deafening silence from the state's rights crowd to follow.

#2 | POSTED BY QCP

Interrupted intermittently by sound of gun shots and the sheer terror of children fleeing from another mass shooting somewhere in America.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-02-09 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are 27 amendments in the constitution. Do states have the right to ignore all 27?

I mean, this is good news for Trump. If you don't like what the constitution says, just ignore it.

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-09 11:00 AM | Reply

#11

"A fraud on the American public."

That's how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.

When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."

www.brennancenter.org

The NRA bought and paid for the right to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-09 11:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They had several non-spiritual reasons for telling SCOTUS to go F itself.

#9 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2024-02-09 10:42 AM | FLAG:

Yeah, all of a sudden they're States Rights Activists.

But the Spirit of Aloha, that's just goofy ---- like Jesus.

#13 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-09 11:17 AM | Reply

There are 27 amendments in the constitution. Do states have the right to ignore all 27?

Another goober who doesn't understand the court ruling.

Hawaii's Supreme Court only ruled that the Hawaii state constitution does not create a right to carry deadly weapons in public. As to the Defendant's federal constitutional claims (the only ones governed by SCOTUS precedent), Hawaii ruled that because he was not a law abiding citizen (he was committing armed criminal trespassing with an unregistered firearm), he has no standing to pursue a claim for violation of his Second Amendment rights because neither Bruen nor any other case protects the right to commit a crime while armed.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-09 11:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

But the Spirit of Aloha, that's just goofy ---- like Jesus.
#13 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

It's not all that religious, and it's an actual law on the books that judges are obligated to respect. It doesn't sound like a very objectionable set of guiding principles - kindness, unity, agreeableness, humility, and patience. It sounds like judges simply use it to inform their methods of Constitutional interpretation. The only manner in which it came up in this case was in a very short passing section wherein the judges noted that "the spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities." It was not the sole basis (or really any basis) for their ruling.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-09 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good news for hawaii - the supreme court is about to rule that we can ignore constitutional amendments that we don't like. If we can ignore the 14th then we can ignore the 2nd.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-02-09 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hawaii's Supreme Court only ruled that the Hawaii state constitution does not create a right to carry deadly weapons in public."

From the article:

"Hawaii's Supreme Court refused to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent on gun rights in an opinion released on Wednesday, declaring that "the spirit of Aloha clashes" with the Second Amendment, which guarantees Americans an individual right to bear arms."

I guess that's up for interpretation, but I read that as Hawaii saying that they don't care what 2A says. So why would they care about the other 26?

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-09 01:45 PM | Reply

"If we can ignore the 14th then we can ignore the 2nd."

The 14th was ignored?

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-09 01:46 PM | Reply

Texas completely ignored SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is upset that Colorado might (so weird) by executing their right as a state, dictate who might become president.
SCOTUS is perfectly happy letting one lunatic judge in Texas dictate the health decisions of women in every state.

#19 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-09 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If we can ignore the 14th then we can ignore the 2nd."

The 14th was ignored?

#18 | Posted by madbomber

It will be when they announce that trump can't be barred from the ballot for his insurrection.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-02-09 02:00 PM | Reply

yav- its all about their preferred outcome, process or consistency be damned.

#21 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-02-09 02:04 PM | Reply

yav- its all about their preferred outcome, process or consistency be damned.

That's why I have been having doubts about how much longer we're going to last. I guess I'll know in 270 days.
S#!T.

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-09 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From the article:

The article is wrong.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-09 02:37 PM | Reply

"I read that as Hawaii saying that they don't care what 2A says."

You're reading it wrong.

Hawaii says they don't agree with the Supreme Court 2A rejecting 200 years of jurisprudence with 2008 Heller, exacerbated by 2022 Bruen.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-09 02:47 PM | Reply

#24 - Exactly how I interpreted it. I had written a much longer response but cut it way down and just published #19. I even used 200 years. Seems it was pretty clear to both of us!

#25 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-09 03:07 PM | Reply

"It will be when they announce that trump can't be barred from the ballot for his insurrection."

Can any state decide what constitutes insurrection? SCOTUS seems to be leaning towards no.

For instance, what's to stop all red states (27 in the 2020 election) from removing Biden? After all, he "stole" the election.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-09 04:34 PM | Reply

"The article is wrong."

OK

Are you able to break it down better than Isaac Schorr?

Do you think this article was just intended to stir trouble and make it look like the state of Hawaii was knowingly and willingly violating the US constitution?

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-09 04:36 PM | Reply

"Hawaii says they don't agree with the Supreme Court 2A rejecting 200 years of jurisprudence with 2008 Heller, exacerbated by 2022 Bruen."

Does the Hawaii have the ability to make that decision?

As I recall, progressives peed in their panties when Roe v. Wade was overturned, but there was never an amendment protecting federal access to abortion.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-09 04:39 PM | Reply

Are you able to break it down better than Isaac Schorr?

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-09 04:44 PM | Reply

Yeah, i did, in #14.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-09 04:44 PM | Reply

"Does the Hawaii have the ability to make that decision?"

Did you really just ask if Hawaii has the right to decide if Hawaii has an opinion.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-09 05:06 PM | Reply

there was never an amendment protecting federal access to abortion.
#28 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Or marriage, or birth control, or homosexual activity.

So you'll shrug when those are verboten.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-09 05:08 PM | Reply

Interracial marriage

or a right to travel

or a right to private school

or a right to vote

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-02-09 05:37 PM | Reply

Can any state decide what constitutes insurrection? SCOTUS seems to be leaning towards no.

For instance, what's to stop all red states (27 in the 2020 election) from removing Biden? After all, he "stole" the election.

#26 | Posted by madbomber

There's ample evidence trump attempted a coup. If you have ample evidence against biden you should share it with trump because he really really needs it.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-02-09 05:39 PM | Reply

#28

9A

#35 | Posted by ichiro at 2024-02-09 05:48 PM | Reply

drudge.com


For Madbummer's reading displeasure...

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2024-02-09 05:59 PM | Reply

For instance, what's to stop all red states (27 in the 2020 election) from removing Biden?
#26 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What compels any state to include Biden in the first place? Or Trump?

Please, tell us.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-09 06:07 PM | Reply

Right to interracial MN marriage
Etc, etc...

Why life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to marry
nsucurrent.nova.edu

Life and liberty are fundamental constitutional rights.

The issue with abortion is when does the State consider the pregnancy, two separate citizens.

Fetuses have rights

Consequently, the feticide definition considers it murder under the law, the unlawful killing of a fetus by another person, or child destruction if there is malicious intent. Furthermore, the fetus should be viable at 20 to 22 weeks of development, meaning it could have sustained life out of the womb.
study.com

To claim otherwise flies in the face of the law as it exists.

#38 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-02-09 06:23 PM | Reply

"Life and liberty are fundamental constitutional rights."

Got a Supreme Court opinion to support that claim?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-09 06:24 PM | Reply

Republicans say The Constitution gives trespassers the right to bear arms in their waistband.

It's really a sight to behold.

The GOP is a Death Cult.

"The ruling stems from a 2017 case against Christopher Wilson, who had a loaded pistol in his front waistband when police were called after a Maui landowner reported seeing a group of men on his property at night.

The handgun was unregistered in Hawaii, and Wilson had not obtained or applied for a permit to own the gun, the ruling said. Wilson told police he legally bought the gun in Florida in 2013."
www.msn.com

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-02-09 07:14 PM | Reply

#40 Give Republicans a break. It will take several decades to fully trace the contours of a "right" they literally pulled from their ass.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-10 12:01 AM | Reply

"Or marriage, or birth control, or homosexual activity. So you'll shrug when those are verboten."

Yup. Those are state issues. There is nothing currently in the constitution addressing any of those thing.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-02-10 05:13 AM | Reply

State issues?
I have yet to hear a good reason why a CITZEN of the United States should have different rights in different states. I'm not a CITIZEN of Florida.

#43 | Posted by YAV at 2024-02-10 08:25 AM | Reply

It doesn't sound like a very objectionable set of guiding principles

#15 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2024-02-09 11:28 AM | REPLY |

It's the blatant historical revisionism and Noble Savage mythology that's over the top. The real historical Aloha Spirit, is trapping your enemies against a cliff face and driving them over the edge of it. Not unlike modern Jesus, the hippy in a dashiki.

I've also seen hawaiians beat the ---- out of a significant number of haoles, and they're comically racist to the point you'd think you were in Antebellum South against all non-islanders.

#44 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-10 09:53 AM | Reply

#44 Sounds like you know a lot more about Hawaiians than i do. My only point was that as far as it applies in the judiciary, it may not be such a bad thing.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2024-02-10 10:56 AM | Reply

If only the time zones worked for my businesses, I'd live on the Big Island.

Their history though is a human as anybody else, rival social groups waging war against each other in the pursuit of resource dominance. The Aloha Spirit as a thing of peace is Noble Savage mythology for tourists. Your average male hawaiian, in my experience, is quite proud of their martial culture. Their historical martial art is Kapu Ku'ialua, it's violent wrestling, not tai chi lol. It's been supplanted by MMA in modern times like everywhere else.

and sometimes the ass kickings aren't just malicious, it's idiot tourist surfers endangering themselves and others. The locals beat them up and chase them off the beach. The police laugh about it. If they didn't, a lot more people would die at the Pipeline and other dangerous surfing breaks.

#46 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-02-10 11:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort