[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, not to appeal to authority, but you understand I do this for a living, right?

Yes, not to appeal to authority or anything, but do you understand that what I do this for a living requires I understand this stuff in depth? That working with/in government in a compliance capacity, with daily access to DHS information and access restriction lists, and daily interactions with legal counsel on this very subject, gives me some really good idea of how this stuff works. So while I acknowledge your status as having Canadian legal expertise you won't mind if I ask that you respect my expertise while actually working within the system in question. Your theoretical perspective is acknowledged, but living it every day certainly provides me a perspective and insight that you don't have.

Stop for a moment and consider whether or not I'm likely doing so in a state of "woeful ignorance" about how constitutional law works.

That comment was not directed at you specifically and was more of a general comment. Your comments on jurisprudence was on the money showing a much advanced understanding of the topic than most. The comment was directed more at those who think that something is unconstitutional just because their interpretation says so. Unless you understand the inner workings and process of government you are likely going to have much better understanding of things than just reading the Bill of Rights.

Now, it's possible that I'm wrong - nothing you've said so far has been at all convincing on that point, but maybe you'll say something new and different soon that alerts me to some idiosyncracy in the US system that I wasn't aware of and is fundamentally divergent from other common law traditions in this area. That's a reasonable possibility, and I'd be open to learning something new. But at the moment, it seems like you've just had counsel explain something to you and you've gotten one small piece of it wrong, and have emotionally committed to that error.

With respect please articulate where I have been wrong in explaining how the system works. I suspect this is going to devolve into an argument of semantics.

Only then deemed unconstitutional. But the implication when they're ultimately overturned is that they always were, and we were just wrong about it before. Consequently, previous decisions suggesting that a law was constitutional, which is now being struck down, are overturned, and no longer binding.

But they weren't wrong before that. As social context changes and society evolves laws that were constitutional can become out dated and unconstitutional. African Americans were considered 3/5ths of a person and not granted constitutional protection. Laws were passed that were considered constitutional at that time that hurt African Americans. Things changed and it took constitutional amendment to make those laws unconstitutional. Changes are only made as challenges and tests are made.

Overly literalist view of the constitution, I think. The second amendment (as it's been interpreted by the USSC, anyway) guarantees the right to own guns, within reasonable limits that can pass the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. So, if you have a limit that's aimed at a public good like public safety, and a means that's reasonably connected to it that doesn't overreach the policy goal (e.g. a list restricting ALL guns would be struck down), you're probably okay to legislate that. If you have a limit that's not aimed at a public good - in this case, helping the good people at Glock USA obtain a monopoly over the industry - you're not okay, that's getting struck down. And it'll be struck down regardless of the legislators' following the correct process to enact it.

Okay, please explain further. The monopoly angle is a completely different kettle of fish. You were saying that congress could not pass a law with a single manufacturer as a key component based on constitutional law. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress cannot enact such law. Said law would not impact the 2nd amendment, nor the freedom of choice. I agree that anti-trust and competition laws may preclude such a law, but constitutional law would not have a bearing. Please educate me on where this is wrong, and feel free to reference the constitution and case law to support your claims.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I understand that. But I don't understand why.

Why isn't the constitution the foundation of most political disagreements in Canada, Germany, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, or Japan?

Cliff, I wish I could answer that question. I think the cultural divide (north/south, conservative/liberal, etc.) greatly impacts this, but I also think the unwillingness to change the language in the document itself is the biggest problem. Context is important, and the context of the 21st century is not represented in the Bill of Rights. I think other nations have superior documents and systems because they respect context and keep those living documents updated. To me there is too much reverence granted to the founding fathers and the belief of their infallibility is a big part of the problem as well. Jefferson and Madison were both brilliant thinkers in their day, but truth be told they stole their ideas from other sources, yet that is never acknowledged. If we could get past some of these challenges we might be able to update the language in the constitution to where it was very clear and more representative of our modern context. I believe the removal of the ambiguity would be a step in the right direction and lead to a much more civil nation.