Victory for the Constitution!

[Beeblebrox]

Today is a day of victory for the US Constitution. The Supreme Court recognizes the right of citizens to own guns!

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Beeblebrox

Today is a day of victory for the US Constitution. The Supreme Court recognizes the right of citizens to own guns!

Have no fear, that wont stop them from trying to take them away by other means. California has already started trying to outlaw lead bullets due to "environmental concerns".

[Inquartata]

This court is a bit of a mixed bag. While I applaud the 2nd Amendment decision, I look askance at the one making capital punishment for child rape unconstitutional*, and also at the one saying that habeus applies anywhere the US has any power, and for everyone, not just US citizens...

I haven't read decision yet ( things are so darned long-winded ), but by report the decision takes capital punishment off the table for any crime which does not result in a death. Does this mean that treason is no longer a capital offense, either?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I haven't read decision yet ( things are so darned long-winded ), but by report the decision takes capital punishment off the table for any crime which does not result in a death. Does this mean that treason is no longer a capital offense, either?

Wow. That's a surprising decision.

It seems like a pretty big step towards getting rid of capital punishment altogether.

[sionnach]

Originally Posted by Beeblebrox

Today is a day of victory for the US Constitution. The Supreme Court recognizes the right of citizens to own guns!

Victory for your constitution, defeat for civilisation.

[Inquartata]

Sorry, none of us accept your authority to define "civilisation".

[sionnach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Sorry, none of us accept your authority to define "civilisation".

I won't force the issue with people who can buy assault rifles on a whim (:

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

{snip}
Does this mean that treason is no longer a capital offense, either?

"No longer"?

No one has ever been executed for treason against the United States.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115

§ 2381. Treason


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

You'll note that what I wrote was "Does this mean that treason is no longer a capital offense"?, not "Does that mean that no one will ever again be executed for treason?"

That a penalty has not been levied does not mean that it can never be or that it doesn't exist...

I still wonder whether this latest decision effectively means that that section of the US Code is unconstitutional as well.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Philistine

"No longer"?

No one has ever been executed for treason against the United States.

--Philistine

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_and_Julius_Rosenberg

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by sionnach

I won't force the issue with people who can buy assault rifles on a whim (:

This ban wasn't about assault rifles, it was about handguns. And specifically, a fairly strict ban on them.

[telkanuru]

Yet the court did not throw out the concept of gun bans or regulations, so this isn't the victory some from the psycho wing would like it to be.

Also, treason would almost by definition be something that endangers national security and therefore people's lives, so it doesn't exclude capital punishment for treason. It merely limits it.

As for child rapists, considering what tends to happen to them in prision, I'd rather they spend a long, long time there.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_and_Julius_Rosenberg

I think they were technically executed for espionage, not treason.

Overall, I wasn't pleased with the major court decisions.

The ban on execution for child rapists is ridiculous. The constitutional protections were inteded to prevent execution (or dismemberment) for things like petty larceny or fraud. It's not some "eye for an eye" crap where death is only applicable if a homicide occurred.

Habeas Corpus rights for the Guantanamo Bay crowd…meh. Wrong call, again, but they're not going anywhere anytime soon, regardless of what the supreme court (or anyone else says), so I'm not too concerned.

The gun ruling went well, although there is some discussion as to how well it will transfer over to other, similar, cases. For those that disagree on the ruling, I'll throw out my condensed argument:

Forget hunting, self-defense and recreation. All are good reasons to allow personal ownership of firearms, but they aren't the reason for the 2nd amendment. The US had just ended a bloody revolution against an oppressive government, and there were many other revolutions/uprisings going on around the same time. If governments inevitably become tyrannical, then there needs to be some guarantee to keep citizens able to resist and overthrow the tyrannical government.

During the Revolutionary War, American militias were run by communities, and volunteers serving in them brought their own equipment, including weapons. So, it would make sense to phrase the 2nd amendment as they did: militias are needed to train citizens to fight, citizens need to have weapons to arm the militia.

So, until the constitution is amended to change things somehow, people should have the right to keep arms to participate in an armed uprising against a tyrannical government. It seems hard to believe such a thing would happen, as the US is pretty free and prosperous, but we operate under the framework of a 200+ year old document, so things may seem a bit off at times.

The argument that the individual state National Guards constitute the "militia" is flawed for two reasons: 1: The State government is tied in very closely with the Federal government, whereas the original militias were much more community-based and closer to the individual citizen. 2: All the weapons for the National Guard are in possession of the National Guard...in other words, the government. That kind of defeats the purpose of the amendment, as citizens can't rebel against the government if the government has all the weapons.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

{snip}
You'll note that what I wrote was "Does this mean that treason is no longer a capital offense"?, not "Does that mean that no one will ever again be executed for treason?"

That a penalty has not been levied does not mean that it can never be or that it doesn't exist...

Fair enough--though a provision that has never once been used over quite a long period of time doesn't seem like the best rejoinder to the opinion.

I still wonder whether this latest decision effectively means that that section of the US Code is unconstitutional as well.

Not as such--it (among other things) was specifically not addressed.

On this issue, the Court said:

Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State. As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

{snip}
Forget hunting, self-defense and recreation. All are good reasons to allow personal ownership of firearms, but they aren't the reason for the 2nd amendment. The US had just ended a bloody revolution against an oppressive government, and there were many other revolutions/uprisings going on around the same time. If governments inevitably become tyrannical, then there needs to be some guarantee to keep citizens able to resist and overthrow the tyrannical government.
{snip}

But this wasn't the basis of the Court's opinion. In fact, Scalia did his level best to completely stay away from this justification, resting the basis for the opinion on individual self-defense.

In fact, he pretty much explicitly disclaimed this interest (presumably because he felt he might have difficulty convincing 4 other Justices to join an opinion allowing fully automatic and other military weapons to be freely available):

Originally Posted by Supreme Court Opinion

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Though I agree with the narrow ruling of the Court (striking down certain provisions of DC's handgun laws), I found the opinions of both the Majority and Dissents to be intellectually dishonest.

--Philistine

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

This court is a bit of a mixed bag. While I applaud the 2nd Amendment decision, I look askance at the one making capital punishment for child rape unconstitutional*, and also at the one saying that habeus applies anywhere the US has any power, and for everyone, not just US citizens...

How do you interpret the sentence, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." as restricting habeas to US citizens?

And are you seriously arguing that despite the fact that the US government has total control over the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the Constitution does not apply there? As Kennedy says:

The Government’s view is that the Constitution had no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed sovereignty in the formal sense of the term. The necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint.

Evidently you disagree with this; I'd be curious as to why.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

How do you interpret the sentence, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." as restricting habeas to US citizens?

And are you seriously arguing that despite the fact that the US government has total control over the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the Constitution does not apply there?

I don't see how your example sentence grants habeas corpus to non-citizens, unless you automatically assume non-citizens get all the rights of citizenship, which kind of defeats the purpose of having such a distinction.

Your example talks about not being able to suspend habeas corpus, which makes sense...if foreign nationals don't have it to begin with, you shouldn't have to worry about whether you can "suspend" it.

[telkanuru]

You are then saying that when non-citizens are tried in US courts, no mandated procedures the US has (from Miranda on up) need be applied. If you are going to imprison alien nationals, then you must follow your legal system. If you do not wish to follow your legal system, then your only recourse is to simply expel them from your country.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I don't see how your example sentence grants habeas corpus to non-citizens, unless you automatically assume non-citizens get all the rights of citizenship, which kind of defeats the purpose of having such a distinction.

Your example talks about not being able to suspend habeas corpus, which makes sense...if foreign nationals don't have it to begin with, you shouldn't have to worry about whether you can "suspend" it.

The question of habeas corpus of non-citizens is territorial. There is no dispute that non-citizens inside the territory of the US would be entitled to habeas corpus (or an equivalent procedure)--this is noncontroversial.

The first part of the Court's opinion in Boumediene held that Guantanamo, for purposes of habeas, constituted territory subject to US jurisdiction. Given the history of Guantanamo, IMHO, this was clearly the correct decision. The sole purpose of housing the prisoners at Guantanamo was to insulate their detention from judicial review--while still maintaining them in a place that was completely and utterly subject to US control.

The second part of the Court's opinion holds that the Detainee Treatment Act was not an adequate substitute for Habeas. While I agree with the decision, I recognize that this part is more controversial. OTOH, to my mind, things like being able to see all the evidence against you, being able to provide evidence in your favor, and being given a meaningful opportunity to dispute the basis of one's detention are not specific incidents of US citizenship, but are fundamental attributes that must be present in any system where substantial rights are at issue. YMMV.

--Philistine