In an unsigned editorial, the Salt Lake Tribune claims the Supreme Court couldn't have found their conclusion based on a fair reading "of the plain language of the amendment" in the Heller v. DC gun ban case.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's holding Thursday that the Second Amendment enshrines in the Constitution an individual right to keep firearms in the home outside the context of a state militia was wrongly decided and turned decades of settled judicial precedent on its head. No fair reading of the plain language of the amendment or its history could have reached the conclusion the court announced."
...
"Justice Scalia, perhaps as the price of winning over the deciding vote, wrote that the newly minted individual right is not unlimited. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he wrote. (Utah Legislature, please note.) Concealed carry can be prohibited, guns can be banned from schools and government buildings, and firearms sales can be regulated, Scalia opined. Unfortunately, Thursday's decision declares open season on all kinds of other gun laws, and the courts now will become the range officers on a firing line of lawsuits. It would have been better to leave Second Amendment precedent alone and let legislatures and city councils determine the best gun policies for their communities."
You can go here and read the whole editorial if you're interested. The comments are running about 57% in opposition to the editorial.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
THINK FAMILIES ARE FOREVER? WELL, THINK AGAIN.
Texas has a bounty on kids' heads, and they're probably not the only ones.
Kurt Schulzke at I Perceive blog, describes how it's set up in a shocking post. He shows how the Texas courts have taken all the power unto themselves, legislative, executive, and judicial, in stacking the deck against Texas families that might fall into their net. It's a system that turns Child Protective Services into a state sanctioned mercenary racket designed to take kids away from their families and put them on the market for adoption.
Texas courts and CPS collaborating to take children from parents? Sounds like conspiracy theory. Evidence? Try this November 2007 Texas Supreme Court Order creating out of thin air — utterly without legislative authority — the Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families.
This Order and recent conduct by various Texas judges, especially Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill, cast doubt on whether the people of Texas can realistically trust the Texas courts to impartially decide child protection cases. The deck is heavily stacked against families and in favor of “child protection” mercenaries who make money grabbing and selling kids while traveling the country teaching others how to do it with a minimum of fuss.
The process that created the Commission and its charter reveal the Texas Supreme Court wielding all three fundamental constitutional powers: legislative, executive and judicial. Through the Commission chaired by a Supreme Court Justice, the Court legislates by creating regulations and then implements these regulations throughout the “collaborative” Texas “child protection” system. Later, it rules on child protective cases. In essence, the Court helps mix the CPS pudding, delivers it and announces how good it is.
Please go here and read the whole thing.
Kurt Schulzke at I Perceive blog, describes how it's set up in a shocking post. He shows how the Texas courts have taken all the power unto themselves, legislative, executive, and judicial, in stacking the deck against Texas families that might fall into their net. It's a system that turns Child Protective Services into a state sanctioned mercenary racket designed to take kids away from their families and put them on the market for adoption.
Texas courts and CPS collaborating to take children from parents? Sounds like conspiracy theory. Evidence? Try this November 2007 Texas Supreme Court Order creating out of thin air — utterly without legislative authority — the Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families.
This Order and recent conduct by various Texas judges, especially Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill, cast doubt on whether the people of Texas can realistically trust the Texas courts to impartially decide child protection cases. The deck is heavily stacked against families and in favor of “child protection” mercenaries who make money grabbing and selling kids while traveling the country teaching others how to do it with a minimum of fuss.
The process that created the Commission and its charter reveal the Texas Supreme Court wielding all three fundamental constitutional powers: legislative, executive and judicial. Through the Commission chaired by a Supreme Court Justice, the Court legislates by creating regulations and then implements these regulations throughout the “collaborative” Texas “child protection” system. Later, it rules on child protective cases. In essence, the Court helps mix the CPS pudding, delivers it and announces how good it is.
Please go here and read the whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
