Per Paul W. Davis, the docket for USA v. Hollis Wayne Fincher has been updated with the Response to Motion for Arrest of Judgment.
I see our wonderful "Department of Justice" is arguing that in camera betrayals and side bar savaging are all the due process one needs to afford the mere peasantry. After all, the relevant statutes "are within the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution," as long as we forget that inconvenient bit about "shall not be infringed," and previous stare decisis power grabs give the whole foul process a surface mask of legality.
[More about Wayne Fincher via WarOnGuns]
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I didn't see any mask. I saw traitors unmasked and flaunting their treason openly.
Hendren and the prosecution would have been hanged by the first Continental Congress. Still not a bad idea.
This Court also cited to the decisionsin U.S. v. Oakes 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977) and U.S. v Warin 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1975)
wherein it was discussed that “technical membership” or membership in an “unorganized” state militia or non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the reasonable relationship test of the Second Amendment.
UH, nooooo. membership had nothing to do with it. The question was about the weapon.
and while I'm at it, they need a proof reader, this 26 U.S.C. § 55861(d), would be where in the code? there isn't a section 55861.
This is the second time you've mentioned "stare decisis"; I know what "stare decisis" means, but to which "stare decisis" are you referring, in particular. Is the one posted by hairy hobbit one of them? what's the other?
Isn't "stare decisis" a double edged sword? Without it there would be no case law precedence, wouldn't there?
I was referring to the cases the government cited in its response: Hale, Raich, Stewart, Miller, where the clear original intent of the Founders was subverted, but which are now used as ruling precedent.
Yes, stare decisis can be legitimate to keep from having to go over the same ground again and again, but if we just let prior decisions stand, we'd still be upholding Dred Scott and separate but equal. When previous rulings can clearly be shown to be in conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is imperative for justice, not precedent, to prevail. That the government will not do this shows them for the unjust tyrants that they are.
Post a Comment