Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[TheDemonLord]

Enough said.

What a joke of a country.

Yeah, what a joke - sticking to the letter of the law.....

[Berries]

The joke being that a supposedly modern country is being held to the letter of the law from a document written over 200 years ago when the people who wrote it would have absolutely no idea what the country would look like now. I thought it was just Islam that lived in the stone age.

[husaberg]

Oddly a few on here like to pick and choose what laws they want to follow as being legimate like NZ firearm laws.
or what the bible say.
like these gems

1 Corinthians 7:1-40 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.

Ephesians 5:22 English Standard Version (ESV) Wives and Husbands 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
not only that Dinah Was Married To Shechem and consummated at nine in the bible. its called the Rape of Dinah, before she was promised to marriage her brothers insisted every male was circumcised As they they had had pre marital sex, then they killed every male in the city plundered its wealth and took all the women.

What about Bible bashing white ol USA as well though

Among the states with the highest rates of child marriages were Arkansas, Idaho and Kentucky. The number of child marriages has been falling, but every state in America still allows underage girls to marry, typically with the consent of parents, a judge or both. Twenty-seven states do not even set a minimum age by statute

[pritch]

It's getting difficult to see much difference between the Taliban and the US Supreme Court. Actually the six SCOTUS Catholic Justices acting according to their religious beliefs is itself unconstitutional.

[James Deuce]

It's getting difficult to see much difference between the Taliban and the US Supreme Court. Actually the six SCOTUS Catholic Justices acting according to their religious beliefs is itself unconstitutional.

So is the lack of belonging to a well regulated militia to own a firearm. They don't give a shit though. We're a couple of weeks from them renaming the USA, "The Republic of Gilead."

[TheDemonLord]

The joke being that a supposedly modern country is being held to the letter of the law from a document written over 200 years ago when the people who wrote it would have absolutely no idea what the country would look like now.

We have Letters of Law that date back to documents that were written over 800 years old, and still relevant.

Did the Founding Fathers know exactly what the country would look like now? No.
Did they know the consequences of adhering to the principles of limiting the Government in the Constitution would be? Absolutely.

The question decided by the Supreme Court has not made Abortion Illegal, it has made it a matter for each individual state to decide. If you think Abortion should be constitutionally protected, then propose an Amendment.

[TheDemonLord]

Oddly a few on here like to pick and choose what laws they want to follow as being legimate like NZ firearm laws.

I know right, it's almost like the individual is their own Moral Agent, with the capacity to judge whether Laws are Just or Unjust and whether it is right for them to follow a Law or not.

Perhaps some of us when the Government says to Discriminate against a group based on their beliefs, that such discrimination is wrong.

or what the bible say.

I don't follow what the Bible says, The point I was making is that the Meme you posted that is supposedly mocking the current Christian attitudes, by juxtaposing Christ repeating what they say doesn't work, because the Bible does actually say that those who don't work, don't eat.

Something that if you had either read or understood the Bible, you'd know.

[TheDemonLord]

It's getting difficult to see much difference between the Taliban and the US Supreme Court. Actually the six SCOTUS Catholic Justices acting according to their religious beliefs is itself unconstitutional.

Did they make Abortion Federally Illegal?

No?

So they didn't act according to their religious beliefs - they looked at what the Constitution says, what the Legal history says and came to the conclusion that there is no way that a Right to Privacy can be extended to an Abortion.

Therefore it's not constitutionally protected.

Nothing more.

[TheDemonLord]

So is the lack of belonging to a well regulated militia to own a firearm. They don't give a shit though. We're a couple of weeks from them renaming the USA, "The Republic of Gilead."

We've been through this, Multiple times.

Militia is interpreted as the Individual.
Well Regulated means 'ready to do their duty'.

And the perfunctory clause (which contains the Well Regulated Militia part) does not over-ride the actionable clause "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The People being a universal, therefore the right is extended to everyone.

And not only that, we have the various treatises and letters and Federalist papers that were written surrounding the creation of the Bill of Rights which clearly outline the intent.

[husaberg]

[James Deuce]

We've been through this, Multiple times.

Militia is interpreted as the Individual.
Well Regulated means 'ready to do their duty'.

And the perfunctory clause (which contains the Well Regulated Militia part) does not over-ride the actionable clause "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The People being a universal, therefore the right is extended to everyone.

And not only that, we have the various treatises and letters and Federalist papers that were written surrounding the creation of the Bill of Rights which clearly outline the intent.

Clearly not what was intended and is a modern interpretation by a bought and paid for Supreme Court. The only consistent thing about the US is the mental gymnastics they use to justify a morally untenable position in EVERYTHING they do. Something written in the 18th Century read by a 21st Century reader means something completely different to the reader. Archaic implied and documented meaning are lost over time and become subject to contextual distortion. The words on those pages do not mean precisely what we think they do now. Quite apart from all that, the US Constitution highlights the idiocy of a written constitution. It just becomes a dogmatic religious document who's original meaning becomes more and more distorted by personal interest and societal changes. You're wrong and so is the US Supreme Court. The Founding fathers had no concept of what "Gun Rights" have become in the US and thanks to the deification of the people and documents used to create the modern USA, they've even abandoned the idea of Amending the Constitution as society evolves. It's no longer a founding document. It's a religious text. And it is becoming increasingly intertwined with Christian fundamentalism.

[Berries]

We have Letters of Law that date back to documents that were written over 800 years old, and still relevant.

If relevant that's all fine and dandy, assuming the bit about burning witches at the stake has been revoked.

I however fail to see any relevance with the US gun laws when you compare late 18th century America to a 21st century supposedly modern power. They are still playing cowboys and indians for fucks sake.

[TheDemonLord]

Clearly not what was intended and is a modern interpretation by a bought and paid for Supreme Court. The only consistent thing about the US is the mental gymnastics they use to justify a morally untenable position in EVERYTHING they do. Something written in the 18th Century read by a 21st Century reader means something completely different to the reader. Archaic implied and documented meaning are lost over time and become subject to contextual distortion. The words on those pages do not mean precisely what we think they do now.

Okay, let's stop there for a second - what you've described is the difference between a Textual approach to the Constitution and an 'Living Constituion' approach to the Constitution.

Textualists tend to be Conservative and Living Constitution tends to be Democrat. The classic Examples are Justice Scalia (Textualism) and Justice Ginsberg (Living Constitution).

The problem is that there is a lot of supporting documentation around the Constitution. There is also a very long and very well documented History behind the Constitution. For example - Magna Carta has been cited in more Supreme Court decisions than anywhere else.

If you are trying to read the Law based on your own current subjective views, as opposed to what the original drafters of the Law actually meant, then it is you who is distorting what is meant.

The Textualists (such as Justice Thomas) are, quite rightly, saying 'The Constitution does not protect this as a right, therefore it goes back to the State Legislature to decide'

And we'll see - if States that pass strict Abortion laws get their representatives voted out and changed, then we will know it was the Will of the People, if not - then we will know it wasn't.

You're wrong and so is the US Supreme Court. The Founding fathers had no concept of what "Gun Rights" have become in the US

Objectively, I'm not wrong. And here's how I can prove it:

Does the US Constitution mention Abortion, anywhere? No it does not.
Does the US Constitution mention the right of the People to Bear Arms? Yes. Yes it does.

They had just fought a Civil War. They knew EXACTLY what they meant. That everyone should be armed to the teeth so as to defend themselves and to overthrow the Government if it become tyrannical.

And before anyone says - Yes, you absolutely could own a Cannon back then, hell you could even privately own an entire Warship (so, imagine Elon Musk decided to buy himself a Nimitz class Super-Carrier)

Quite apart from all that, the US Constitution highlights the idiocy of a written constitution. It just becomes a dogmatic religious document who's original meaning becomes more and more distorted by personal interest and societal changes.

....

and thanks to the deification of the people and documents used to create the modern USA, they've even abandoned the idea of Amending the Constitution as society evolves.

....

It's no longer a founding document. It's a religious text. And it is becoming increasingly intertwined with Christian fundamentalism.

See, I used to hold the English view - that an Unwritten Constitution enabled flexibility - then Jacinda happened - who pissed away multiple rights, without following the proper process, several of which were later found to be illegal (but our Human Rights Courts and other Legal establishments are/were too impotent to do anything about it) - so now I'm definitely in favor of a Written Constitution to act as a Balwark against Politicians like that.

But I'll pause for a moment and actually agree with you: Yes, Congress has been shirking it's responsibility to act as the Legislature on a multitude of issues, instead passing the buck to the Supreme Court. The simple solution is to add an Amendment, find something that has super-majority support (and therefore is the 'Will of the People') and boom - job done, Amendment passed, Constitution updated - you can now have whatever legal protections or changes you want.

If there isn't enough bi-partisan support or enough voting support, then it won't happen.

And finally - this is not Christian Fundamentalism. If it was, then the SC would have made Abortion federally illegal (and to be honest, they would have had good legal grounds to do so) - this is simply applying the Letter of the Law, as it should have been.

[TheDemonLord]

If relevant that's all fine and dandy, assuming the bit about burning witches at the stake has been revoked.

1736: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Act_1735

I however fail to see any relevance with the US gun laws when you compare late 18th century America to a 21st century supposedly modern power. They are still playing cowboys and indians for fucks sake.

Why?

The US Gun laws in the 18th century were predicated on 2 ideas:

1: The Individuals right to Self-Defence. There are still individuals and there are still people who would do harm to them, so yes this is still relevant.
2: Overthrowing a Tyrannical Government. Governments still exist so there is still the possibility of them turning Tyrannical, so yes this is still relevant.

And allow me to raise 2 examples: If, as everyone seems to agree, that this ruling is some great moral injustice and that the US Government has become tyrannical, US Citizens know what they have to do.

Secondly, Ukraine - that was a Modern Power, with pretty liberal Firearm laws proving the point that the Founding Fathers predicated this right upon: Shit happens, you don't know when it's going to happen, so you'd better have the tools to deal with it when it does.

[Berries]

Why?

Because amongst other things a civilised society has, now all the injuns have been dealt with, is a Police force which should, in an ideal world, negate the need for armed civilians roaming the streets and a professional army to deter outside forces a la your Ukraine example.