Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    25

    Default PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    If I am not mistaken, the PA Constitution, Section 21 states:

    "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

    So my question is:

    With such a clear and concise declaration of PA gun ownership rights, how did we end up with all of the laws and licenses that effectively allow that right to be questioned? For example, how is the LTCF not in violation of Section 21 of the Constitution. And there are dozens of other laws which have been posted on this site, and all of them seem to contradict Section 21.

    In fact, after reading Section 21, I don't even see how a felon, who has served his time, could be denied the to right own/carry a gun.

    This is an honest question. I am genuinely interested in knowing how all of this is possible?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    State College-ish, Pennsylvania
    (Centre County)
    Posts
    1,953
    Rep Power
    1116399

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    It's possible because, in general, politicians and judges lack integrity. Those who claim to have integrity yet support gun control in PA either never read the PA constitution or are liars.

    To them, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" would all depend on "what the meaning of is is."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    25

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomTask View Post
    It's possible because, in general, politicians and judges lack integrity. Those who claim to have integrity yet support gun control in PA either never read the PA constitution or are liars.

    To them, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" would all depend on "what the meaning of is is."
    I see you are a cynic like myself. I respect that, but it doesn't really answer the questions:

    Where are the checks and balances?
    Where are the judicial reviews?
    Where is the PA Supreme Court?

    OR, are we the people at fault for not challenging these laws in court?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    south western PA, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    3,498
    Rep Power
    12565222

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    Ingorance and apathy reigns everywhere and most people have no working knowledge or UNDERSTANDING (not just reading the words) of their Constitutions.

    http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm

    State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date
    Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

    1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

    1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

    1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

    1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    1796 Tennessee: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

    1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

    1816 Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

    1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.

    1818 Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    1819 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

    1819 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.

    1820 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.

    1832 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State.

    1834 Tennessee: That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
    1835 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.

    1836 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.

    1836 Arkansas: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

    1838 Florida: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

    1842 Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    1845 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State.

    1850 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.

    1850 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    1851 Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

    1851 Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State [military subordination clause removed].

    1857 Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

    1859 Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

    1865 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State cannot be questioned.

    1865 Georgia: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    1865 Florida: Clause omitted.

    1868 Texas: Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.

    1868 North Carolina: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    1868 Florida: The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.

    1868 South Carolina: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

    1868 Mississippi: All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence.

    1868 Georgia: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne.

    1868 Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

    1870 Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

    1875 Missouri: That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

    1875 North Carolina: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice.

    1876 Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

    1876 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

    1877 Georgia: [Militia clause deleted.] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

    1879 Louisiana: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed.

    1885 Florida: The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne.

    1889 Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    1889 Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

    1889 South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

    1889 Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

    1889 Idaho: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.

    1890 Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

    1891 Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . . Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

    1895 South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

    1896 Utah: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.

    1901 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    1907 Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

    1912 Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

    1912 New Mexico: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.


    1945 Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

    1959 Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    1959 Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    1963 Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    1968 Florida: The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
    1970 Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    1971 North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein [word omitted] shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

    1971 New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

    1971 Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    1974 Louisiana: [Militia clause deleted.] The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

    1978 Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms [qualifiers omitted], which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

    1982 Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

    1982 New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

    1984 North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

    1984 Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

    1986 West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

    1986 New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

    1987 Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

    1987 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms [for the common defence omitted] and this right shall never be questioned.

    1988 Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    1990 Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

    1994 Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

    1998 Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    13,618
    Rep Power
    21474867

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    Quote Originally Posted by bubba23 View Post
    If I am not mistaken, the PA Constitution, Section 21 states:

    "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

    So my question is:

    With such a clear and concise declaration of PA gun ownership rights, how did we end up with all of the laws and licenses that effectively allow that right to be questioned? For example, how is the LTCF not in violation of Section 21 of the Constitution. And there are dozens of other laws which have been posted on this site, and all of them seem to contradict Section 21.

    In fact, after reading Section 21, I don't even see how a felon, who has served his time, could be denied the to right own/carry a gun.

    This is an honest question. I am genuinely interested in knowing how all of this is possible?
    Even fundamental rights that are explicitly protected by a constitution are not unlimited, and that's the way it should be. We have the right to interstate travel, but you lose that right if you are in jail. We have the right to enter into contracts, but you can lose that right if you are insane, and you don't get that right until you are old enough.

    At the federal level (and I presume it's the same for state constitutions), there's an elevated level of skepticism when courts look at statutes which appear to infringe protected rights. So we have freedom of the press (and free speech), but the courts uphold bans on obscene speech, and allow lawsuits for libel & slander.

    We have the right to keep and bear arms, but courts will obviously accept laws that strip that right from people in jail. Courts will look at other laws, like the requirement of a LTCF for "concealed" carry (which includes unconcealed carry within a vehicle) and apply heightened or "strict" scrutiny. Such a law must narrowly advance a compelling state interest in the least infringing manner available. So the PA Supreme Court accepted restrictions and bans on concealed carry, as long as open carry wasn't prohibited, because the court found that concealed carry was a particularly nefarious manner of carry and the state had a compelling interest in preventing crime.


    The courts will allow lawmakers to infringe rights if strict scrutiny is satisfied. That's always a matter of opinion, and some judges are predisposed to allow gun control. More people should pay attention to which judges are running for what office, but few people really care.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    south western PA, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    3,498
    Rep Power
    12565222

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    GunLawyer001 your post lists lots of facts and reasons about why we have problems we now face.

    We have the right to enter into contracts this is how most of US get into trouble without knowing or understanding what we enter into everytime we sign our name or get a permit or license.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    25

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    Even fundamental rights that are explicitly protected by a constitution are not unlimited, and that's the way it should be. We have the right to interstate travel, but you lose that right if you are in jail. We have the right to enter into contracts, but you can lose that right if you are insane, and you don't get that right until you are old enough.

    At the federal level (and I presume it's the same for state constitutions), there's an elevated level of skepticism when courts look at statutes which appear to infringe protected rights. So we have freedom of the press (and free speech), but the courts uphold bans on obscene speech, and allow lawsuits for libel & slander.

    We have the right to keep and bear arms, but courts will obviously accept laws that strip that right from people in jail. Courts will look at other laws, like the requirement of a LTCF for "concealed" carry (which includes unconcealed carry within a vehicle) and apply heightened or "strict" scrutiny. Such a law must narrowly advance a compelling state interest in the least infringing manner available. So the PA Supreme Court accepted restrictions and bans on concealed carry, as long as open carry wasn't prohibited, because the court found that concealed carry was a particularly nefarious manner of carry and the state had a compelling interest in preventing crime.


    The courts will allow lawmakers to infringe rights if strict scrutiny is satisfied. That's always a matter of opinion, and some judges are predisposed to allow gun control. More people should pay attention to which judges are running for what office, but few people really care.
    I very much appreciate your comments, but the current state of our system of laws, the complexity of the legal system, and the assumption that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" bothers me.

    A reasonable person should be able to read the Constitution and make reasonable assumptions about their freedoms and limitations.

    Why would/should a reasonable person, who knows the Constitution, possibly feel they are breaking the law by having a loaded handgun in the car when driving from Lancaster to Reading? I am sure that someone can point to all the legal verbiage and reasoning that might explain why those laws exist, but that does not make it right.

    I will concede to being an old man who is very discouraged with the state of the nation, but our fundamental liberties don't seem all that fundamental any more.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    State College-ish, Pennsylvania
    (Centre County)
    Posts
    1,953
    Rep Power
    1116399

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    Quote Originally Posted by bubba23 View Post
    I see you are a cynic like myself. I respect that, but it doesn't really answer the questions:

    Where are the checks and balances?
    Where are the judicial reviews?
    Where is the PA Supreme Court?

    OR, are we the people at fault for not challenging these laws in court?
    But I did answer the questions. The judges either don't know, or lack integrity.
    The people don't care because they've been conditioned by the politicians and the media into acceptance. Plus the masses generally have their heads up their asses and don't care about anything that doesn't involve cell phones, wireless internet, "My Space", dumb sports, getting laid and the acquisition of BLING. Anyone else (like you) who observes the incongruencies between the constitution and actual laws in use is labelled a "right wing freak", "gun nut" or something along those lines.

    Nothing cynical about it. It's a FACT.
    Last edited by RandomTask; July 19th, 2007 at 03:56 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    13,618
    Rep Power
    21474867

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    Quote Originally Posted by bubba23 View Post
    I very much appreciate your comments, but the current state of our system of laws, the complexity of the legal system, and the assumption that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" bothers me.

    A reasonable person should be able to read the Constitution and make reasonable assumptions about their freedoms and limitations.

    Why would/should a reasonable person, who knows the Constitution, possibly feel they are breaking the law by having a loaded handgun in the car when driving from Lancaster to Reading? I am sure that someone can point to all the legal verbiage and reasoning that might explain why those laws exist, but that does not make it right.

    I will concede to being an old man who is very discouraged with the state of the nation, but our fundamental liberties don't seem all that fundamental any more.
    I agree, the law is not intuitive, and in fact nobody knows all of the laws that apply to him. I just heard that Congress passed 360 new bills last year, almost 1 per day on top of every law that was ever passed before. Sure, some of them just renamed federal buildings, but a lot of those either mandated or prohibited acts that might apply to you or me.

    In addition, the PA state government wasn't idle, either. I don't know of anyone, including lawyers or our elected representatives, who even pretends to know every law.

    It's pretty much a farce that when you get hauled into court, you have to prove that your behavior fell within guidelines that you never saw before. You may have to prove, for example, that you were traveling directly between your home and a target range, and that you didn't stop at a WaWa or at a bank ATM anywhere in between. MOST people in PA are confused about when they can legally transport a firearm in a vehicle without a carry permit. MOST cops don't know the Uniform Firearms Act, and the entire Philadelphia Police Department just ignores their obligations under the UFA.

    At least PA finally put the laws online, since we are presumed to be familiar with every word of every sentence in every paragraph of every statute and regulation.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Age
    53
    Posts
    7,320
    Rep Power
    37697

    Default Re: PA Constitution: Help Me Understand

    read some supreme court decisions (the opinions, not just the outcomes) sometime and you can quickly identify the problem.

    they often use phrases like "balancing the constitutional rights of the individual against the compelling interest of the government" and "national security requirements" and "the interest of the state", etc.

    this represents a fundamental breakdown in our system. the supreme court is not supposed to weigh anything against the constitution. they are supposed to coldly and objectively determine whether a law is consitutional or not...period.

    it could be the best, wisest, most necessary law ever passed...but, if it does not pass constitutional muster, the supreme court is supposed to shoot it down. (then, if the law is really that important, the people can change the constitution to allow it.)

    another problem is that the supreme court often allows "stare decisis" to trump the constitution. of course, in reality, if the supreme court got it wrong in the past, that is no reason to keep getting it wrong.

    supreme court decisions involving questions of constitutionality need to be founded not at all on "balancing" or continuing what has been done in the past, but rather entirely on the simple black and white question of "is this law consitutional or not"? further, the answer to that question needs to be based on *reading* the constitution, not *interpreting* it. (while laws are often not written in plain english and need to be inerpreted, the bill of rights actually is written in plain english and does not need to be interpreted...the bill of rights says what it says...very clearly.)

    the supreme court is the mechanism in our system that is supposed to force the government to abide by the constitution...and they simply don't do it (on either the state or federal level). since they do not do their job, that leaves no one who can effectively enforce the constitution...thus, it has become nothing more than a piece of paper to be ignored at will by the government.

    in a nutshell, the institution that is tasked with ensuring the government abides by the constitution has simply failed miserably to do so.

    this is why the government in PA can get away with infringing and questioning the right to keep and bear arms even though the US and state constitutions expressly forbid their doing so.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 10th, 2007, 05:08 PM
  2. Guess who voted against our Constitution
    By ghost in forum General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2007, 02:02 PM
  3. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers
    By ChamberedRound in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 1st, 2006, 02:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •