Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
 |
|
On Jul 8, 9:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 7, 4:05 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:13 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
In the USA, neither rights nor laws reign supreme. Rights usually
win, but in narrow circumstances, laws can win.
My opinion would be that rights rarely win, but no need to argue that.
What are some examples of where laws win?
Licensing of people who want to carry hand guns (Heller).
Why should there be "narrow circumstances" where laws can win?
Because a state's compelling interest (in the above example, public
safety).
Well, in this specific case, /presumed/ compelling interest.
I'd argue, and probably be correct, that the licensing of guns has
little effect on the consequences of the actions of violent behavior.
So, again, with this specific example, the action in interest is based
on failed logic and reasoning, and actually is contrary to the
compelling interests of the state.
Regardless of any specific case (for which the judiciary decides who
has the better argument), the general principle of compelling interest
applies in the USA.
The principle may be compelling interest, but as we can see in practice,
it simply isn't a valid reason to legislatively limit a right.
|
I disagree. I think the Court has done a good job.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
