Aurielius Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I have read with a degree of amusement the attempts to parse the lines of the 2nd Amendment by various posters both for and against the right of civilians to bear arms. One question though, if the intent was not to allow civilians to bear arms then how is it that after multiple challenges to this in state and federal court the Supreme Court has always upheld that right and has repeatedly struck down lower level laws infringing upon it? Evidently the highest jurists in the land don't agree with the limited view of "to bear arms'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I have read with a degree of amusement the attempts to parse the lines of the 2nd Amendment by various posters both for and against the right of civilians to bear arms. One question though, if the intent was not to allow civilians to bear arms then how is it that after multiple challenges to this in state and federal court the Supreme Court has always upheld that right and has repeatedly struck down lower level laws infringing upon it? Evidently the highest jurists in the land don't agree with the limited view of "to bear arms'.Appeal to authority logical fallacy. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 wherein I did elucidateGun-control laws have a much longer history in this country than gun-rights activism. For 170 years, judicial opinion was against any individual right to keep, carry, and use arms for hunting and self-defense. This right was invented by activist judges starting in the 1960s when they decided to ignore parts of the Constitution they didn't like. Appeal to authority logical fallacy. That is all.I— what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 wherein I did elucidateGun-control laws have a much longer history in this country than gun-rights activism. For 170 years, judicial opinion was against any individual right to keep, carry, and use arms for hunting and self-defense. This right was invented by activist judges starting in the 1960s when they decided to ignore parts of the Constitution they didn't like. Appeal to authority logical fallacy. That is all.I— what?He is making the argument that since the highest court upholds a certain view it is correct, even though it is not universally agreed on that it is what the second amendment means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Since when did judicial precedent become a logical fallacy? Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make it so. :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Since when did judicial precedent become a logical fallacy? Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make it so. :facepalm:If your entire argument lies on a authority figures ruling when it is not accepted by every expert, then it falls under logical fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Since when did judicial precedent become a logical fallacy? Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make it so. :facepalm:Waste of time Giiny, because if some don't agree with what is precedent in case law then the Supreme Court must have been wrong....irrespective of the concept that they (the Supreme Court) are the final arbiters of how the Constitution is actually interpreted. Their ( the Nay Sayers) opinion trumps fact.:facepalm: Edited February 6, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Since when did judicial precedent become a logical fallacy? Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make it so. :facepalm:Waste of time Giiny, because if some don't agree with what is precedent in case law then the Supreme Court must have been wrong....irrespective of the concept that they are the final arbiters of how the Constitution is actually interpreted. Their opinion trumps fact.:facepalm: You agree with the court so they must be right then huh? That works both ways, nice try though. The simple fact is that just because the court makes a ruling does not instantly make it the correct ruling. Ruling have been overturned before and they can be again. Simply because the court says something does not make it fact. Saying that your argument is fact just because a certain ruling said something that matches your view does not make your argument correct. The court is not always right and the courts view is not always the opinion of the majority of experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Since when did judicial precedent become a logical fallacy? Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make it so. :facepalm:If your entire argument lies on a authority figures ruling when it is not accepted by every expert, then it falls under logical fallacy. marharth, I have a legal qualification, and know what I am talking about. I can assure you that if you told either a British or American Supreme Court judge that their rulings were not valid because "it is not accepted by every expert", and started telling the counsel who were quite properly quoting legal precedent that they were spouting logical fallacies, your arse would be hauled off to the cells for contempt faster than you could blink. Judicial precedent has a central role in determining the law in both common law jurisdictions(that's ones that don't have a written constitution, marharth, like Britain, and who rely heavily on it), and in jurisdictions that have extensive Constitutions or legal codes, such as the USA and France. Whether it is a statute or a piece of a constitution, the law has to be interpreted. Now like it or not and leaving out the question of political appointments, you may think that judges are daft old buffers, and I have certainly seen some that are less than sober during the afternoon session, but they really do know their stuff. It is EXPECTED of lawyers that they quote case law to back up their arguments. I take it that if you, marharth, were on trial, you would instruct your counsel not to quote case law as this would be a logical fallacy? By Talos, that phrase logical fallacy is getting a little tired... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Since when did judicial precedent become a logical fallacy? Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make it so. :facepalm:If your entire argument lies on a authority figures ruling when it is not accepted by every expert, then it falls under logical fallacy. marharth, I have a legal qualification, and know what I am talking about. I can assure you that if you told either a British or American Supreme Court judge that their rulings were not valid because "it is not accepted by every expert", and started telling the counsel who were quite properly quoting legal precedent that they were spouting logical fallacies, your arse would be hauled off to the cells for contempt faster than you could blink. Judicial precedent has a central role in determining the law in both common law jurisdictions(that's ones that don't have a written constitution, marharth, like Britain, and who rely heavily on it), and in jurisdictions that have extensive Constitutions or legal codes, such as the USA and France. Whether it is a statute or a piece of a constitution, the law has to be interpreted. Now like it or not and leaving out the question of political appointments, you may think that judges are daft old buffers, and I have certainly seen some that are less than sober during the afternoon session, but they really do know their stuff. It is EXPECTED of lawyers that they quote case law to back up their arguments. I take it that if you, marharth, were on trial, you would instruct your counsel not to quote case law as this would be a logical fallacy? By Talos, that phrase logical fallacy is getting a little tired...The difference between a trial and a debate on the subject should be pretty obvious, but if its not I will point it out for you. In a trial you are using law to try to convict someone. In this debate you are debating the laws that would convict (or not convict) someone. If you are debating the laws that would be used in trial it is not exactly a wise idea to use a trial as a example. That is to explain why your example does not work, I will move on to explain in more detail why what Aurelius did was incorrect. To be simple lets say the subject was drugs. The subject is if drugs should be legal or not. Are you telling me that you would mention a case ruling that made drugs legal, to try to argue to keep drugs legal? Without even mentioning the contents of said ruling, it seems a bit ridiculous to use that as your only argument right? I will move on to why his exact quote was incorrect. "Evidently the highest jurists in the land don't agree with the limited view of "to bear arms'."That is his argument. In order to make a proper argument with the use of authority you have to meet two standards. First, the person has to be a real expert on the subject. High jurists are experts on the matter, this is fine. Second, there must be a consensus among legitimate experts on the matter. This is not the case with the second amendment, because its meaning is commonly debated among experts in constitutional law. The argument he is making is an appeal to authority because of the second rule mentioned. His sole argument is that because the highest jurists believe in his point of view, it is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts