#4

Why? This is not the first time and likely not the last.

So, what is HR1 based on???

Generally, uniformity in the "times, places and manner" of holding national elections.

We need to revisit Marbury vs. Madison. We should not have an unelected, politically biased, branch of our government with the power to overrule Congress. That was never the intent of the founders.

#29 | Posted by MSgt

#14
... "the people" as in "we the people" refers to the group collective not the individual.

Have you considered SC precedent to the contrary?

Have you considered the legal effect of a preamble on specifics later expressed?

Have you considered SC precedent that says "the people" refers to the "national community?"

Have you considered that "the militia" is statutorily defined as a subset of "the people" since one of the first acts of Congress?

Have you considered that definitional subset exists, in part, today?

#13
... dangerous and unusual weapons.

Yes, a term of art i.e. not what you think it means. See the National Firearms Act for edification.

#212

I try not to name call so I don't disagree with that argument. But what if I don't give a s**t about that person's ignorant point of view and want to educate others?

It is not rational to continue an argument worth [sic] someone who irrationally embraces a lie. If you can't change his mind with facts, do you really think you can do it by calling him names?

Then there's the entertainment value in rubbing the nose of the ignorant in the piles of manure they cast about.

There's also the "preaching to the choir" aspect. There are far more lurkers than posters here. Sometimes the argument continues to educate those that lurk.

I try to avoid name calling.

Just think, if Lewzer had actually signed an EO banning bump stocks this court wouldn't have been able to overturn it.

Not likely for the same reason this didn't work. A statute defines "machine gun" as basically one trigger pull shoots many rounds. ATF decided a device that imitates that action is a "machine gun."

It ain't. Speeding up single trigger pulls by mechanical means does not transform single pull into shoots multiple rounds. That said, I think "bump stocks" should be banned. Congress should get off its a"".

A judge making such a decision is not based on the Constitution, ...

You could have saved yourself another ignorant rant by reading. The decision is not about the Constitution but a statute. Marbury prevails again. So too the fifty some odd legally trained Founders that wrote Article III.

We should demand that gun owners have to have insurance to pay the victims or their families for any crimes they commit ...

The current state of gun liability

Personal insurance: Insurers rarely offer any separate gun liability insurance policy. Most individuals have some property and liability coverage for firearms in their standard homeowners' policy. Additional liability coverage is available through a personal umbrella policy. A few policies cover losses from accidental shootings in excess of the homeowners' coverage.

When there is liability insurance, it only covers accidental shootings and in some cases, acts of self-defense. There is no coverage for criminal or other intentional shootings. (emphasis added)

#7

I expect those kinds of ignorant fantasies from the usual suspects but from a lawyer who, ostensibly, knows how to look up and read a statute?

We shouldn't allow violent criminals or the mentally ill to have gun ...

We don't, both are prohibited by federal statute. Your ignorance notwithstanding.

... they can buy without a background check ...

This bill takes care of that. You complaining?

My understanding is that the 10 day review change is ...

If memory serves, it's to cover some gap in NICS data that allowed some mass shooter (Dylan Roof?) to buy a gun.

... make sure the background check system is well funded and integrated from state to state.

That's a well known problem for a long time. It's the cause of the gap. I don't think this bill does much for it.

#45

My search turned up nine shows on Netflix.

... read the actual decision ...

Do you have a link? I've tried to find one without success.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack

Generally true. However,

As of March 2020, 10 municipalities in the U.S. allowed noncitizens to vote in some or all local elections. One was in California, and nine were in Maryland.

Joshua A. Douglas, associate professor of law at the University of Kentucky College of Law, published an article in 2017 stating, "Municipalities can expand voting rights in local elections if there are no explicit state constitutional or legislative impediments and so long as local jurisdictions have the power of home rule." Some states, for example, require that changes to local charters get approval from state legislatures, thereby limiting municipal authority over voter eligibility laws, whereas other states do not.[7]

Douglas identified 14 states"including California and Maryland"as posing no clear impediments to municipalities passing their own voter qualification laws:

"Socially disadvantaged farmers" goes back to 1990.
And Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion that it's legal for the government to advance government interests this way, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pea

You have a strange way of reading court opinions.

Question

Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. Overruling Metro Broadcasting (497 US 547), the Court held that all racial classifications, whether imposed by federal, state, or local authorities, must pass strict scrutiny review. In other words, they "must serve a compelling government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest." The Court added that compensation programs which are truly based on disadvantage, rather than race, would be evaluated under lower equal protection standards. However, since race is not a sufficient condition for a presumption of disadvantage and the award of favored treatment, all race-based classifications must be judged under the strict scrutiny standard. Moreover, even proof of past injury does not in itself establish the suffering of present or future injury. The Court remanded for a determination of whether the Transportation Department's program satisfied strict scrutiny.

A preamble is a statement of purpose. It neither expands nor limits specifically granted powers or rights.

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 "Its true office," wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, "is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?"3

#7 | Posted by Maverick

Chief Justice Roberts assured us that there was no more race based voter suppression in the South. Is he a liar or is he just disconnected from reality.

Invoke the 14th amendment against Trump congress!

#6 | Posted by earthmuse

#7 | Posted by Danforth