TexasCHLforum.com

This is an interesting article that quotes Justice Stephen Breyer espousing his philosophy about the Constitution.

Breyer, who just published "Making Our Democracy Work," a book about the role of the court in American life, outlined his judicial philosophy as one in which the court must take a pragmatic approach in which it "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances."

The problem with this philosophy is that unwavering values cannot be applied flexibly without becoming wavering values that are not values at all.

baldeagle wrote:This is an interesting article that quotes Justice Stephen Breyer espousing his philosophy about the Constitution.

Breyer, who just published "Making Our Democracy Work," a book about the role of the court in American life, outlined his judicial philosophy as one in which the court must take a pragmatic approach in which it "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances."

The problem with this philosophy is that unwavering values cannot be applied flexibly without becoming wavering values that are not values at all.

Boy, talk about bafflegab.

jimlongley wrote:

baldeagle wrote:This is an interesting article that quotes Justice Stephen Breyer espousing his philosophy about the Constitution.

Breyer, who just published "Making Our Democracy Work," a book about the role of the court in American life, outlined his judicial philosophy as one in which the court must take a pragmatic approach in which it "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances."

The problem with this philosophy is that unwavering values cannot be applied flexibly without becoming wavering values that are not values at all.

Boy, talk about bafflegab.

I understood it perfectly. I guess I've been listening to too many politicians

I like to read peoples interpretations and philosophies on things. It makes me think, and helps to get my head wrapped around different ways of thinking, to form my own opinions.
This article goes along with the above subject. In the Fox News article; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12 ... ions-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“He (Justice Breyer) suggested that those values and intentions mean that the Second Amendment allows for restrictions on the individual, including an all-out ban on handguns in the nation's capital”.
To me this person as a Supreme Court Justice is scary, and makes me wonder if he considers the complete wide view, or has tunnel vision on some subjects. I have not read his book, but I wonder what references he uses to back up his views on the Constitution.

MeMelYup wrote:I like to read peoples interpretations and philosophies on things. It makes me think, and helps to get my head wrapped around different ways of thinking, to form my own opinions.
This article goes along with the above subject. In the Fox News article; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12 ... ions-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“He (Justice Breyer) suggested that those values and intentions mean that the Second Amendment allows for restrictions on the individual, including an all-out ban on handguns in the nation's capital”.
To me this person as a Supreme Court Justice is scary, and makes me wonder if he considers the complete wide view, or has tunnel vision on some subjects. I have not read his book, but I wonder what references he uses to back up his views on the Constitution.

If you read his dissenting opinion in Heller (pdf), he has a mind of mush.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are — whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

First of all, regardless of the wording of the prologue "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,", the operative phrase states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". In legal terms, "shall" is a word that constrains the government regarding its responsibility. "Will" is interpretive but "shall" is absolute. The government simply does not have the right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Any attempt to restrict that right within the context of a militia is sophistry, pure and simple. Even if the amendment restricted the right to a militia-related right, the prologue states that a militia is "necessary to the security of a free State" and that, because it's necessary, the government cannot restrict the people's right.

Secondly, I defy Justice Breyer to point to a single word in the 2A that says the right is not absolute, much less the section of the Amendment that he claims "permits government to regulate the interests that it serves." He has made this up out of whole cloth. "Shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation. The Amendment does not state "except under certain circumstances" or "in most cases" or "in urban areas" or any other such nonsense that the liberals claim are true.

As evidence for his contention that the 2A is subject to government regulation, Breyer points to laws in Boston, New York and Philadelphia in the 1700's that prohibiting the firing of guns within the city limits under certain conditions. (What firing a gun has to do with the RKBA Breyer fails to explain.) Then he points to laws that regulated the storage of gunpowder for fire safety reasons. He argues that because restricting the places and means for storing gunpowder made it more difficult to operate a firearm, the government obviously is justified in restricting ownership and possession of firearms as well.

With "logic" like that, anything is possible, which is precisely what the Court has done for some time now.

In addition to all you have said, his blatant ignorance of self defense rights is astounding. The last quote from that Fox News story referenced above shows his obvious bias;

"We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12 ... z18BgneKz2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How absurd is that statement?!? So if someone is breaking into my house or trying to mug/murder/rape me or my family, I need to load everyone onto the subway so we can all go to Maryland where I can pick up my gun and use it in self defense? Oh yeah, that sounds like it is supporting my rights of self defense. Idiot.

I saw his interview on TV, I was blown away that this guy is a Supreme court justice.
He came across to me as kind of an idiot.

Breyer is just plain wrong. Even the old Miller decision has a statement in it that his ilk have carefully avoided. In ruling that Miller had no standing to bring his case to the Supreme Court (he was either dead or had absconded by then anyway), the justice who rote for the majority said that a sawed-off shotgun was unsuitable for use by the militia. That is the substance of what the antis always quote, but, if one reads the whole opinion, as I have, the majority also inserted a definition of the "militia" that was basically any able-bodied man who was willing to defend the United States using weapons that they, themselves, provided. So much for that National Guard argument, and so much for the antis assertions that only members of the National Guard, called into service, have the right to bear arms. I have, of course, paraphrased the actual wording in the decision, since I don't have time to look it up again. However, I think that I have given the substance of what the parts I mentioned contained.

EconDoc wrote:Breyer is just plain wrong. Even the old Miller decision has a statement in it that his ilk have carefully avoided. In ruling that Miller had no standing to bring his case to the Supreme Court (he was either dead or had absconded by then anyway), the justice who rote for the majority said that a sawed-off shotgun was unsuitable for use by the militia. That is the substance of what the antis always quote, but, if one reads the whole opinion, as I have, the majority also inserted a definition of the "militia" that was basically any able-bodied man who was willing to defend the United States using weapons that they, themselves, provided. So much for that National Guard argument, and so much for the antis assertions that only members of the National Guard, called into service, have the right to bear arms. I have, of course, paraphrased the actual wording in the decision, since I don't have time to look it up again. However, I think that I have given the substance of what the parts I mentioned contained.

You are correct. The opinion also points out that in the early days of the Republic able-bodied men were required to own a usable firearm and were subject to fines if they did not own one.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. * * * That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; * * *.'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

Now we have states where citizens are required not to own firearms and are subject to fines and imprisonment for owning certain weapons.