I would just point out that the "surety" and "going armed to the terror of the public" laws did NOT disarm the accused. They only had to put up a bond. Big difference!!!
100% agreed with the criticism of Justice Thomas's reasoning. Why can't it just come back to the fundamentals of the circumstances under which the bill of rights was written? You just finished fighting the torries (which would be analogous to the national guard), who first disarmed civilians, and you're wanting to ensure the people cannot be disarmed. This is consistent with the language of the state's own bills of rights that preceded the federal Constitution.
I think this text and history methodology should be applied to ALL RIGHTS not just the 2nd. What law existed in 1791 requring me to register my car, pay a fee for a licence, get insurance etc I currently do not have any plates on my car and have not had them in about 7 years now. I have no plans to get any.... EVER.
Unfortunately, I was unable to find ANY reference to the “Militia Census Act of 1803” which Professor Merkel referenced. I unsuccessfully searched online for it and any reasonable facsimile of it. The Militia Act of 1903 repeatedly showed up in search results, but that’s a century beyond the Founding Era. OBTW, thanks for fixing the audio sufficiently that the speakers could be heard. Transcript and closed captioning at beginning are unrelated to the actual audio.
If corrupt judges would just honor their oaths of office and the plain language of the supreme Law of the Land, none of those cases would be necessary. Just sayin'. !!!
![Physician, Heal Thyself: Regulatory Reform of the Legal Profession [2024 NLC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gFcOoWsQAYw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Physician, Heal Thyself: Regulatory Reform of the Legal Profession [2024 NLC]](/img/tr.png)
Your sound levels are broken. Need to remaster with volume 10x louder
Sound issues? I'm not having issues on other channels.
In live chat they acknowledged the sound problem and tinkered with it but never got it to sound really good.
I would just point out that the "surety" and "going armed to the terror of the public" laws did NOT disarm the accused. They only had to put up a bond. Big difference!!!
Nor was it a ban on POSSESSION of any weapons, just prohibition of a manner of CARRYING certain weapons. Another Big difference.
Note also that instead of regulating firearms on us ships the response was allowing. Letters of marquise and letting privateers attack pirates
100% agreed with the criticism of Justice Thomas's reasoning. Why can't it just come back to the fundamentals of the circumstances under which the bill of rights was written? You just finished fighting the torries (which would be analogous to the national guard), who first disarmed civilians, and you're wanting to ensure the people cannot be disarmed. This is consistent with the language of the state's own bills of rights that preceded the federal Constitution.
I think this text and history methodology should be applied to ALL RIGHTS not just the 2nd.
What law existed in 1791 requring me to register my car, pay a fee for a licence, get insurance etc
I currently do not have any plates on my car and have not had them in about 7 years now. I have no plans to get any.... EVER.
Unfortunately, I was unable to find ANY reference to the “Militia Census Act of 1803” which Professor Merkel referenced. I unsuccessfully searched online for it and any reasonable facsimile of it. The Militia Act of 1903 repeatedly showed up in search results, but that’s a century beyond the Founding Era. OBTW, thanks for fixing the audio sufficiently that the speakers could be heard. Transcript and closed captioning at beginning are unrelated to the actual audio.
If corrupt judges would just honor their oaths of office and the plain language of the supreme Law of the Land, none of those cases would be necessary. Just sayin'. !!!
There’s no audio! I can’t hear any arguments.
Literally can’t hear anything
So, Prof. Merkel doesn't believe the other BoRs Amendments do not apply to individuals either? YK, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, etc.
And his false claim that Scalia said the prefatory clause has no meaning was ridiuculous.