Gun ownership is the most important right in America.
Look at how Obama is trying to ban guns, he knows if people can not defend themselves in their own homes, the people will be forced to support his agenda, in exchange for not having their homes raided by his henchmen.
Democrats want the American people to live in fear of their own Govt.

Let me put it this way: If Scalia were a monkey, and he was trying to peel a banana to feed his baby (America), then he would shove the banana, peel and all, up his own ass, then force it down the throat of the baby. This is Scalia's America.

"Look at how Obama is trying to ban guns, he knows if people can not defend themselves in their own homes, the people will be forced to support his agenda, in exchange for not having their homes raided by his henchmen."

"


What do you have against lawmakers?"



--wowsa

try making a little sense, jackass.

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI (1871)
. . .

I have the greatest respect for Justice Antonin Scalia; however I must respectfully disagree with his premise that the Constitution “is dead.” To the contrary, I think that it was the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution that it be a living document as attested by the twenty-seven amendments since its adoption; which reflects their wisdom and foresight in providing for such change. Likewise, the fact that people may disagree with the court’s interpretation of some of its provisions is not a sufficient basis for adopting a regressive approach to the law. As Alice pointed out, “[T]he question is . . .whether you can make words mean so many different things”; and to say that the Constitution means what the founding fathers intended it to mean is, like Humpty Dumpty, merely to beg the question.

Professor Tribe once told me that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. I thought he was joking at the time; but after the decision of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, I have come to think that he meant it.

"I'll assume you think Judges make laws when they feel like it doesn't meet their personal political views.
What do you have against lawmakers making the laws?"

-Rightard Spokeswoman, wowsa

Sorry, this is all I read when you posted. Try again, with more children's stories. Maybe one where Humpty Dumpty gets HIS RIGHTS TAKEN FROM HIM IN AN UNKNOWN FEDERAL PRISON WHERE HE IS BEATEN AND RAPED EVERY DAY.

Weather he is a jerk off or not is imiterial to the 2000 election. He was not the only one 7-2 ,5-4. you need to read the case brought before the supreme court. The fact that I see is they screwed themselves just like the Democratic party has done this year with Fl and MI. They want to play the game but they fuck themselves and who's fault is that. Maybe if they get into office or especialy if they don't they should work on legislation that makes standard voting laws. They have it so complicated and diverse so they can fuck around and manipulate it. But when their plan does not work and it goes before a court there own political manuvering fucks them. Bush is a fucken puts but he or the Supreme court did not hand the election to the rep. the dems handed it to them just like they will this time because of their bullshit games with Fl and MI.

__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow

I'm really sick of stuff like this and this happening, and all the Dems can say is, "Oops, I thought this was a dog show."

You are not understanding what Scalia is talking about. The amendment process is in the Constitution, as such it is the Constitutional way to change the Constitution. Scalia has no issue with changes that occur this way. What Scalia is talking about is current attempts to apply different definitions to words in the Constitution in order to affect a change in law.

So what Scalia is saying is that the Constitution means something specific, it is a set of fixed statements. It is not something that changes meaning with every change in public fancy. It prevents the justices from being able to trump the collective wisdom of the founders, Americans since that date, all the Congresses and the 225 years of jurisprudence.

If people want to change the Constitution, fine, do an amendment; don’t try to stack five members on the Supreme Court to change it for you.

Oh, and shut up about Bush vs Gore, SEVEN justices agreed that the FSC had acted wrong. Two wanted to send it back to them again to get them to get it right (i.e. allow Bush's win to stand), however seven agreed with the decision. Besides every rational recount shows that Bush won.