District of Columbia v. Heller Explained (Dissed Season 3 Episode 3)

[@maurygoldblat8982]

Scalia is on the mount rushmore of the USSC

[@jackfitzpatrick8173]

Heller...McDonald...Bruen...and "Caetano v Massachusetts" all suggest that the Supreme Court takes the words "shall not be infringed" seriously.

[@apm9151]

Breyer was an idiot on the 2nd amendment

[@billymeadows1739]

What do they think when they read a right to keep and bear arms that is a god given right that can not be infringed means. It is not a privilege given by government but a god given right that has absolutely nothing to do with government in anyway whatsoever

[@frankkoller2622]

That's called insurrection. Which is exactly one of the things the militia is supposed to suppress. How do you spell violation of our unalienable rights? I N S U R R E C T I O N What is insurrection? Have a look for yourself. Pay extra-close attention at clause (1) & (2) *********************************** THE INSURRECTION ACT: USC 10 §333 Interference with State and Federal law The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it- (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. *********************************** Share this information! Thank you. 👍 🇺🇸

[@frenchstudentA]

Thank you PLF for putting out podcasts like these! Keep up the good work, it's definitely appreciated--From the SF Bay Area

[@Anans1_Spyd3r]

My only issue with 2A is that I wished Libertarians and Conversatives fought just as hard for 4A, 5A and 14A and applied the same standards

[@ragnarbaron6090]

The second protects all the others. So effectively are

[@Anans1_Spyd3r]

@ragnarbaron6090 I am going to use a politically neutral example. Tell me how well it will go you pulling a piece on a cop violating your 4A rights. I will wait.

[@porscheoscar]

Originalism means the U.S. Constitution did not apply to women or African Americans as neither were given any time. Since there is no inexorable command to interpret the Constitution in any specific way then it's simply your choice to read the Constitution like a slave owner who thought women had no role in governing nor even voting. These people who opt to read it like slave owning oligarchy will have you believe that anyone not in that exclusive group need to be formally invited into the human rights club by spelling it out for the governments by Amendments. Consider that the first and only mention of slavery was its abolishment and that restoration of full civil rights took the Congress an entire additional century and you see how antiquated originalism is inherently.

[@maurygoldblat8982]

You don't understand what matters in law. If you did, you would adore originalism

[@dianahill7239]

Still waiting since 1964 to have my adoption nullified and take back my legal birth certificate. And not have that authority or custody be given back to my biological relatives or their relatives. I am in need of a lawyer to represent me. I am okay with going to the United States Supreme Court. Several law enforcements, the AG of California and the ACLU are a few organizations that have been informed. The people who adopted me don't want me to testify. My biological relatives are trying to demand or require me to be in their lives; so to speak. I have no such thoughts. There is a law that allows people to disown someone, and allow society to know that you don't want to associate with them. You shouldn't have to constantly get a restraining order, be worried about tracking devices being placed in your vehicle or other said items or spyware in your place of dwelling. People who are adopted are not always informed that others might be 'stalking' them; only because they are biologically related. Then people expect you to be diplomatic; not knowing you are allowed to request they leave you alone. The United States constitution has never properly protected orphans, adopted children or foster children. This does need to be brought to the United States Supreme Court.

[@frankkoller2622]

Macaulay Culkin the childhood actor from the movie "Home Alone," got a legal separation from his father. It's not the Constitution that's at fault, it's all the regulations, restrictions, inadequate laws concerning the adoption process and the adoption agencines.

[@dianahill7239]

@@frankkoller2622 Birth certificates began in 1900's. They are state issued and federally issued. The people who issue this document omitted information such as: orphan, adopted, refugee, immigrant. Some people have duel citizenship. The United States Supreme Court has never had to address these issues. It gets more difficult when there have been divorces and people remarrying. I also don't want the authority or custody to be given back to biological relatives or their relatives. There is also a pedophile involved.

[@frankkoller2622]

@@dianahill7239 They started issuing birth certificates in the 1930's Not the 1900's.

[@ryankorn5911]

Check out the definition of,“infringed” says it all. Of course use the Webster’s 1828, keep it OG. Also, the word, “and” in a legal contract, check out the 4th amendment. Lots of “and” going on. What gives? Feeling like a human trafficked bond slave over here.

[@frankkoller2622]

Don't let this freak you out!... Here's the root of the problem. How do you spell violation of our unalienable rights? I N S U R R E C T I O N What is insurrection? Have a look for yourself. Pay extra-close attention at clause (1) & (2) *********************************** THE INSURRECTION ACT: USC 10 §333 Interference with State and Federal law The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it- (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. *********************************** Share this information! Thank you. 👍 🇺🇸

[@frankkoller2622]

"We the People," are the "MILITIA" as defined in; UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 10 311 "CLASSES OF THE MILITIA" 🇺🇸👍

[@Neil-yg5gm]

The text suggests it is a right only for those in a militia.

[@frankkoller2622]

"We the people" are the militia as defined in USC 10 311 (Classes of the militia) Granted, citizens are in the "Unofficial Militia" class. But, we are militia under the law, nun the less. Article II states, "Militia,' it doesn't say classes of militia, just militia. That would include the "Official Militia" and the "Unofficial Militia." Militia is militia. 👍

[@ragnarbaron6090]

Quite the opposite the text suggest that the subject is the people

[@Neil-yg5gm]

@@ragnarbaron6090 The text suggests the subject is the militia. If you are in the militia, you can own a gun.

[@ragnarbaron6090]

@@Neil-yg5gm actually it does not. It’s a present participle. The subject is people, the verb is shall. We don’t word structure in the same manner any longer. If we were put it in todays language it might read “needing to have a militia, the right of the citizenry to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed” The word structure of the 2nd amendment is also found in the fourth amendment and 9th amendment. Think of it as a clause you could remove from a sentence, and the sentence would still make sense.

[@Harriet1822]

@@Neil-yg5gm Participation in a militia is a reason, not a condition, for the guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms.