Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Did Sotomayor say this?

So I have heard that Sotomayor actually said the 2nd amendment "may not" apply to the states....anyone else heard that? If that is her stance she has lost her mind.This was already determined years back that it does and we citizens have the right.

Answer Question
 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 5:19 PM on Jul. 14, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (11)
  • Citizens are not states.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:26 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • *sigh* Sometimes I grow weary of our so called "leaders".
    brandyj

    Answer by brandyj at 5:28 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • Yes, she did say this in a ruling. I can't remember which one, but I read the whole ruling. She basically states that the Constitution itself doesn't apply to the states. The issue at hand was the 2nd amendment.

    I just wonder then exactly who the Constitution applies to?

    She will be a disaster if appointed.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 5:52 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • Oh wow yourspecial that is SCAREY
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 5:55 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • yourspecialkid


    Give the links to support your claim.You are taking things out of contexts. She explained today in her confirmation hearings what she did and what she did not.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 6:10 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • I just wonder then exactly who the Constitution applies to?

    The people. People are not states, and states are not people. The idea behind the second amendment is that the state is less likely to step on the rights of the people when the can form militias and fight against the state, it says nothing about the state's right to keep and bear arms.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 6:24 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • The bill of rights did not apply to the states until 1966 when Miranda v Arizona was ruled saying that they did apply to the states. There were several other cases leading up to the Miranda ruling such as Mapp v the State of Ohio.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 7:33 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • The people. People are not states, and states are not people. The idea behind the second amendment is that the state is less likely to step on the rights of the people when the can form militias and fight against the state, it says nothing about the state's right to keep and bear arms.

    The meaning of what she said is that the states are not obliged to follow the bill of rights. Until 1966 the states did not have to honor the bill of rights. They only applied to federal cases.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 7:35 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • http://reason.com/blog/show/134772.html


    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) recently finished questioning Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about her views on the Second Amendment, specifically her role in the 2nd Circuit's decision in Maloney v. Cuomo, which held that the Second Amendment does not apply against the states. Sotomayor stated explicitly that she and her 2nd Circuit colleagues were following Supreme Court precedent in this decision, that she "accepted and applied" the Court's ruling last year in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. She and Leahy also referenced as precedent the 1876 case U.S. v. Cruikshank, which held that the Second Amendment does not constrain state governments.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:41 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

  • I just wonder then exactly who the Constitution applies to?


    It has always applied to individual rights, not state's rights

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 8:17 PM on Jul. 14, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.