I really hate to feed the new troll, but just this once. The Second Amendment has an introductory clause about militias. There is nothing that conditions the right to own a gun to membership. Instead, the right is granted to "The People", a term of art in the Constitution that always refers to the citizenzry.
Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Except of course for the introductory clause.
Sure looks like hair-splitting.
Appeals courts differ on Obamacare; Supreme Court case likely
By Joe Johns, Bill Mears and Tom Cohen, CNN
updated 4:03 PM EDT, Tue July 22, 2014
Washington (CNN) -- It was a tale of two rulings -- the best of times and the worst of times for Obamacare in the federal appeals courts.
First, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit court of appeals ruled Tuesday against a key component of the law -- the federal subsidies for millions of people who signed up for health coverage.
The 2-1 decision created a legal path for a possible Supreme Court case that could essentially gut the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which passed with zero GOP votes.
A few hours later, all three judges on a 4th Circuit panel in Virginia decided the opposite by declaring the subsidies legal and proper.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/politics/obamacare-subsidy-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
dude honestly, the way you write is like some type of mystical passage. Since I have to guess at what you're getting at, I am assuming you are asking why an individual doesn't have to be part of a militia to own weapons. Annnnd... that's because it is an individual right and always has been, like I wrote in the post you just quoted. Unless you honestly believe the last 200 years of private gun ownership is just a hallucination.
Actually it wasn't an individual right until 2008. Even so, there's a lot of disagreement on the issue, which makes "abiding by the Constitution" more difficult than the TPs would have one believe.
lmao, well i'm done with this.
Private American citizens have owned weapons since (and prior to) the BoR being ratified. No one disputed the Right then and not for a long time afterwards. In fact, some States wouldn't ratify the Constitution until there was an ironclad guarantee that a BoR would be forthcoming to protect certain Rights that were understood by all to be outside the authority of govt, so that ppl like you couldn't infringe on them. The right to bear arms was one of them, it was debated then, and settled. the only reason to bring it up now is because you don't agree with it and want to overturn it, but pls don't bother trying to rewrite history.
There are peripheral issues law professors can write articles about.
Then there are the core concepts set forth in the first three Articles of the Constitution. Things like congress makes the laws and the president implements them.
Obama seems to regard those as more in the nature of advice than legally binding. Kind of like all the inventive interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Obama has added a clause that the Congress has the right to make the laws unless the President really wants to do something and Congress won't go along, then he can do it independently. Call it the Emperor Obama clause, since that's the way he interprets it.
Who's trying to rewrite it? If the subject was "settled", why not just delete the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clause and be done with it? Save everybody a lot of trouble? Perhaps it wasn't "settled" after all.
All of which may be true, which makes "abiding by the Constitution" all the more difficult.