Load newest
Replying to @marwilliamson
Yes ... when the Supreme Court last ruled on this ... I think they did forgot to read this part ... I think a well regulated Militia might be the National Guard or the Army Reserve.
2
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Sure, I'll tell you. That part in inconvenient for them, like most of the constitution.
Replying to @marwilliamson
The never-ending problem with the left is that 'well-regulated' always, always means more regulated.
3
Replying to @marwilliamson
Any so called 'strict constitutionalist' would see that militias were formed during the musket era. Therefore the militia's purpose is no longer relative, needed, nor should be legal as such. National Guard exist for what reason? The armed forces exist for what reason?
Replying to @marwilliamson
I gotta go with Scalia and his using two different schools of Constitutional interpretation... Scalia espoused a conservative jurisprudence and ideology, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. Thus the disparity!
Replying to @marwilliamson @Frances_Fisher
Bribes...?
Replying to @marwilliamson
Read article 1 and 2. Tell me who funds “the militia” and who’s the commander in chief of “the militia” and then tell me if they’re talking about private citizens or what was pretty much a branch of the armed forces 2 1/2 centuries ago.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Justice Scalia explained the phrase in pages 22-24 of the Heller decision. supremecourt.gov/opinions/07…
Replying to @marwilliamson
Not enough clips yet boys?
Replying to @marwilliamson
This shouldn't be happening.
Load more