SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Antonin Scalia, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, has died:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - one of most conservative members of the high court - has died. Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.
Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in his sleep early on Saturday while in West Texas for [a] hunting trip, the US Marshall service said. Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia's death is, unsurprisingly, now being widely reported.
From the San Antonio Express News:
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
[...] The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation. Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.
A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.
Most major news outlets are covering this story, including CNN [video autoplays], The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:50AM
that stuff about well-regulated militias
What stuff is that?
Oh, you mean the part where it says a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state?
You do realize, don't you, that the phrase about a well-regulated militia being necessary does not cancel the separate phrase shall not be infringed or the application of that phrase to the people (not just the militia)?
Again... reading skills... plain English... not that difficult for those who know the language.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:06AM
Justin Case, you're wasting your time.
The "progressive" movement preaches lofty goals like "tolerance," "diversity," and "keep an open mind," but in truth, they're every bit as tyrannical and coldblooded as any of the institutions they wish to replace.
They've already decided on their goals; things like the Constitution mean nothing to them.
Rational argument means nothing to them either.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:49PM
Tolerance, diversity, and open-mindedness don't include agreeing with the opposition when it goes against your values or is just plain wrong, like when conservatives claim non-acceptance of their intolerance of gays is intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:40PM
"Not agreeing" is far and away different from "enforcing conformity under threat of death". All law is ultimately backed by the threat of death.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:15AM
Taken with the historical context the 2nd amendment was there to ensure that what has become the national guard would have access to the necessary weapons to wage war. Hence why they get to have most of the same hardware that the military does. They can have RPGs and amphibious assault ships that civilians are legally barred from owning.
If the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment were correct and that it granted an individual right to keep and bear arms, then the only thing barring us from having those things would be the ability to pay for them. In short, the amendment doesn't apply the way the NRA thinks it does otherwise we'd have an amendment removing or amending the rights for the sake of our own safety.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:46AM
At the time the constitution was written, "the militia" was every person who owned a gun and "well regulated" meant able to shoot safely and accurately.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:55PM
At the time it was written they were using flintlock rifles, they had no standing army and most of the country had no full-time police force. They were also likely to be deputized or expected to take part in military operations as needed.
The requirements were lower because the weapons were less dangerous, not because they intended for those to be the requirements forever.
At any rate, if they meant to create an individual right to have firearms, they should have said a person's rather than the people's.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:31PM
I guess Francis is a-okay with licenses being mandatory for Internet access - after all, all the founders had at the time was mechanical presses and ink quills.
Francis may not have heard of 10 USC 311 [findlaw.com]: are you a male able-bodied US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45? Congratulations, you are part of the official US militia! Now, where do I pick up my Stinger and Javelin missile launchers and M4A1 rifle?
Even if it weren't for 10 USC 311, the authority US government has is given to it by delegation derived from the authority of the individual citizen. If the individual citizen can't do a thing, neither can the person delegate such authority to any other [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:47PM
The requirements were lower because the weapons were less dangerous, not because they intended for those to be the requirements forever.
I see no expiration date or other exit condition. They did provide a mechanism to change the Constitution should it become necessary. We haven't followed that procedure yet WRT the 2nd amendment.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:01PM
Right, "plain English", from the 18th century with two recorded versions and a questionable comma; text which legal minds much more qualified than us have been arguing about for decades.