European Convention on Human Rights....

no mention of an Individual's right to keep and bear arms.

FDR also tried to expand the number of justices in his first term when some of his programs got shot down.

Any chance she might leave us?

Maybe by way of a natural death, a Beer truck?

Who is this Ole Ginsburg ? Does she have a brother named Sven ??

A SCOTUS Justice, and no, not to my knowledge.

the two Oaths of Office Supreme Court Justices swear to:


“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”



Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

I think the full name is Darth Vader Ginsburg....

apparently alot of folks on here seem to think that there is only one way to interpret the constitution. if that is your argument then what is the point of even having the supreme court? the supreme court must stay balanced for the well being of our nation, lest every single branch of government slide into the polarized chaos that has ruined political discourse, and all but killed any oppurtunity for a functioning government. i would not want to see the court 6-3 with liberal leaning justices any more than i want to see it 6-3 with conservative leaning judges. 5-4 is a good place to be. if Justice Ginsburg decides to retire, so be it. If God should chose to take her home, then that is the way it will be. if not? well then you all had better hope that Trump wins again in 2020, as i sincerely doubt she could hold on for 6 more years.

for your interpretation to be worthwhile, the court would have to have an even number of Justices...split (ideologically) right down the middle. that has never been the case.

I do believe in strict constructionist thought. it says what it says. what does "shall not be infringed" mean? pretty simple, really....unless you're trying to restrict my Freedom. only THEN, do you need to start twisting and torturing words into new meanings.

To play the devils advocate, out of that same excerpt What does “well regulated” mean? Anyone possessing any firearm they chose, whenever they chose, does not seem “well regulated” to me....

And that is the reason for the court. Because “a well regulated militia” is not a clear cut and well defined idea. Therefore it is open to interpretation. I also rather doubt the framers of the constitution had the foresight to predict the weaponry of today, and the constitution was written in regards to flintlocks. It needs to be clarified by people who are WAY smarter than you or I. That is our system, and the system is constitutional. You can’t pick and chose. I am not a “gun grabber”. I own quite a few of my own actually. I’m just not so ignorant as to refuse to try and understand an opposing point of view. Nor so ignorant as to define someone by their political allegiance. Kind of peeing into the wind here obviously, as I’ve read dozens of comments about how “I wouldn’t throw a rope to a drowning democrat” (real Christian idea that) but oh well. Throw my two cents in there, then let the wolves come

But hatin' on the other team has become part of the "American way", Nativetrapper10. And, interpretation requires thought and the admission that everything may not be as simple or as black and white as we'd like them to be. There are many on both ends of the political spectrum who will not allow themselves to think in a way that might let them consider the views of those not like them.

I believe this makes it fairly clear.... https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

"When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.

One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:


“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.

For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.

As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.

So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”

And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.

Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning."

Does full posession incude ALL weapons for ALL Americans, including felons and everything weapon the military uses?

I've heard the really weak argument that the "militia" referred to in the 2A can be interpreted today as the US armed forces. This idea is laughable.
All of the rights that are acknowledged in the bill of rights are the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, not rights of the government.
With that in mind it makes it much easier to interpret the 2A.

I believe that Ginsburg just wants to stay relevant, without being a Supreme Court Justice she is is just an outdated old woman. She has been on the cutting edge of womens/civil rights for so long that she likes the attention that it brings....IMHO

But what does the "well regulated" part of it mean? Militia can be dfined.

mi·li·tia /məˈliSHə/
noun
1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency:

I believe the founders thought the people should be armed as well as the military. The only way to stand up to an oppressive gov. but they could never have imagined what arms would be available. Felons possessing guns, called a repeat offender, happens all the time. The problem is because a few people should not have certain weapons, nobody gets them. If I want a tank I should be able to have one.

One of the founder's definition - So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

There's no doubt about what the founders intentions were with the 2nd. They made if very clear, but clear can be made muddled by those who do not like what their intent was.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”

And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.

Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning."