Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

a reply to: introvert

Ok, that's pretty simple. But it does not define 'arms', nor does it reflect the right itself in relation to modern technology. That lack of definition is what has allowed states to define that right for us and limit our 2nd amendment right beyond what the constitution states.

you are quite correct about that, but if you look to the militia act of 1792 and then the militia acts o up to the point of when the feds illegally took over the guard in 1903.

but in 1792,just four year after the Constitution went into effect the militia act of 1792 was passed this here is where many say the first federal gun laws were passed.

here is the part in i talking about

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, 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 to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

so here we have two laws passed that say every free able-bodied white male citizen, changed later in 1862 to allow african americans to to join the militias.

the first was every free able white male to join and provide himself with a musket or firelock. with said amount of ammunition.

the second was the requirement of size, be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms,

so in other words they didn't expect them to come out with their squirrel guns.

a reply to: introvert


He does, doesn't he.


It is apparent to me, a mere nobody, that if the Constitution cannot repair itself and even blocks effort to restore it's original intent, then the whole thing needs a complete rebuild...rings, valves and bearings......

P.S.

However, until that time, it IS his job to uphold it. Certainly not to suggest not studying it....unless there's some document superior to it? I think not.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I agree. The problem I see is that it does not define what is acceptable when one is not part of the organized, or unorganized, militia.

In that case, I can see why the right may need to be further defined.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I certainly hope he upholds it. It is his job.

a reply to: MrSpad

Yes. I think that reading the actual article that is referenced in the OP Mediaite article makes it clearer what Judge Posner is meaning. He agrees with and cites David Strauss, who argues against the "originalists" on the court. Posner prefers the "living" Constitution theory.

It was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (an originalist) who had criticized the evolving, "living" Constitution theory as making the Constitution useless. Scalia wanted a "dead Constitution," arguing it must be interpreted as the framers originally understood it. .... haha I suppose someone into headlines could misunderstand about Scalia, if the headline read "Scalia says to kill the Constitution!". Poor Scalia would be told to move to North Korea.

Posner wants a "living" Constitution versus Scalia's "dead" one. Both judges love the Constitution, but Scalia's love seems more like that crazy doctor in Florida who fell in love with a woman and kept re-doing her corpse to preserve her original likeness, except it was a macabre and grotesque act.

a reply to: xuenchen

IMPEACH THE BUGGER

and keel haul him . . . as fitting punishment for his destructiveness to the Republic and the Constitution.

Foundational values never grow old.

ETERNAL VALUES WIN.

Only the oligarchy and their stooges are interested in trashing foundational values and replacing them with values literally from hell.

a reply to: introvert

as far as i'm concerned, it is already covered in the NFA (National Firearms Act), and subsequent laws that followed.
whether one is not part of the organized, or unorganized, militia.

there are plenty of laws on the books, that could and would put a stop to all unlawful activity if they were enforced the way they should be.

here is a the list for NFA guns ans devices,

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:
Machine guns This includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (e.g., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. A non-machinegun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is determined to be "readily convertible", and classed as a machine gun, such as a KG-9 pistol (pre-ban ones are "grandfathered").

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs) This category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel less than 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs) This category is defined similarly to SBRs, but with either a smoothbore barrel less than 18" long or a minimum overall length under 26".

Suppressors This includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor. In October, 2015 Arizona Congressman Matt Salmon introduced the Hearing Protection Act to remove suppressors from the NFA.[8]

Destructive Devices (DDs) There are two broad classes of destructive devices: Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc. Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 inch except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50" inch, such as 20-gauge or 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law be

National Firearms Act

there are two subsections for the link above that people might want to read.

If we're rebuilding it, let's nix ALL THE OTHER LAWS while we're at it.

It's unacceptable to have more laws than we can even count.


Now re-read those statements and replace "laws" with "restrictions"- since that's what they are.
Bring back freedom. We could probably have a functional society with about twenty laws. Could you imagine knowing if what you're doing is against the law or not?

What I've been able to determine from this thread:

Some people believe The Constitution of the United States is sacred

Also - the rightier leaners have glommed on to a new word - and a new meme

You know - like they do

:-)

originally posted by: Nyiah
If you're objective enough to think about the constitution without rosey glasses, it's already been determined a couple of times to be outdated. Hence multiple amendments to fix outdated parts.

That fact alone should tell you that it can and will be, at any given point in time, outdated with regards to any social period it's re-examined in.

At best, it's really a tweakable suggestion list, not a gold-clad guide book.

Thank you, saved me from saying it. But I will anyway.

And the fact the Bill of Rights was an amendment to the Constitution, and subsequent amendments added until well into the 20th century, and the fact that the Constitution was created to allow for it to be updated through amendments because the FF knew changes would be required to it in the future because of how society evolves.

I'm sure some here would have fought tooth and nail to prevent the Bill of Rights from being ratified because it wasn't included in the original, sacred Constitution.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The problem is that the 2nd amendment is not very effective if you have to look to outside sources for definitions and clarifications.

The 2nd states that the right of the people to carry arms, shall not be infringed. Well, if you or I disagree with any part of the National Firearms Act, any enforcement of that act could be considered an infringement. The constitution does not say right to keep and bear arms, in accordance with the NFA.

See where this is going?

a reply to: Liquesence

"Happy for us that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1787. ME 6:295, Papers 12:113

People - and a country - should be able to think on their feet

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yep. When it becomes outdated or "defective" for a time, it requires change, or being updated.

I'm sure if ATS had been around when certain amendments were proposed and ratified, some people would have had their day condemning an amendment that grants blacks the right to vote, or women the right to vote, etc, because "It's not in the Constitution and the Constitution is sacred, gawddernit, sacred I tell ya! How DARE you try to CHANGE it?!"

People—and a country—should be able to think for themselves.

a reply to: Liquesence

People—and a country—should be able to think for themselves.

We are being held hostage by the past. This is not as it was intended...

Fearful people avoid change at all costs. Even when it costs us our liberty - and usually, it happens in the name of liberty

a reply to: xuenchen

Considering the OATH this Gentlemen took when he was SWORN IN as a U.S. Federal Judge , I would think Voicing that Opinion Publicly is Grounds for Dismissal . Let's See If the LAW Is Enforced concerning this Breach of it .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

Considering the OATH this Gentlemen took when he was SWORN IN as a U.S. Federal Judge , I would think Voicing that Opinion Publicly is Grounds for Dismissal . Let's See If the LAW Is Enforce by concerning this matter .

Yes, he is sworn to uphold the constitution, a document written to also include the process' needed to change the document if so needed.

Also, that document protects his right to free speech (voice his opinion).

Ironic, isn't it?

Do you believe his act of voicing his opinion (free speech) should lead to him being taken off his bench?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Liquesence

"Happy for us that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1787. ME 6:295, Papers 12:113

People - and a country - should be able to think on their feet

Slight problem with that.

This country is short on philosophers, and long on zombies.

originally posted by: TSefu
How did he get his job? Seeing as he doesn't understand it's most basic responsibility

He was appointed by Reagan, how ironic.

a reply to: neo96

Slight problem with that.

This country is short on philosophers, and long on zombies.

What we have now is a failure to communicate, cooperate, compromise or tolerate

I have a feeling Neo that it will take something monstrous to make us all realize the error of our ways

Here's hoping we wise up before that actually happens

a reply to: introvert

" Do you believe his act of voicing his opinion (free speech) should lead to him being taken off his bench? "

If his Personal Thoughts Conflict with his Ability to be Far and Balanced concerning his Court Decisions , then yes , he should Resign as a First Choice , then if he refuses , take Him to Court .