Hawaii Court Decision Suspends Bill of Rights

[ICU 812]

Hawaii 's Stste Supreme Court has ruled that the Stste legislature can suspend specific portions of The Bill of Rights.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ha...nt/ar-BB1hZJDv

If they can suspend the Second Amendment just by a show of hands they can suspend the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments . . .or any other part of The Constitution.

I predict that when it comes to them, SCOTUS will slap it down 9-0!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Hawaii 's Stste Supreme Court has ruled that the Stste legislature can suspend specific portions of The Bill of Rights.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ha...nt/ar-BB1hZJDv

If they can suspend the Second Amendment just by a show of hands they can suspend the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments . . .or any other part of The Constitution.

I predict that when it comes to them, SCOTUS will slap it down 9-0!

WOW!! I would agree with you but the vote might not be 9-0.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Leaving aside the misunderstanding of the op's first sentence and the dumbing down of the the MSN article, not "just by a show of hands" but in a carefully reasoned, historically based argument. If you're interested, you can start on page 18.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Leaving aside the misunderstanding of the op's first sentence and the dumbing down of the the MSN article, not "just by a show of hands" but in a carefully reasoned, historically based argument. If you're interested, you can start on page 18.

... No "misunderstanding" at all there, mate...
Just the basic facts... And I'll surely agree-with you
that they gave a "historically based argument" - but it
was NOT "carefully reasoned" - as it's missing a few points.

... While I can both understand and appreciate History
and Culture of Hawaii, let's not allow appreciation to
uh... trump our common sense.

... Some of the history and culture becomes rather moot
as running a modern government - or at least it was
back in the 1950s as Hawaii surely became the 50th state.

So then preserving the US Constitution and Bill of Rights
takes precedent over historic customs and tribal laws.

... Maybe THAT is the reason other former customs
and rites are no longer in practice today.
Or should throwing sacrifices into volcanoes still happen??

The US Supreme Court should and will step in to
preserve the 2nd Amendment.

#### Salty

[yeahsurewhatev]

What the opinion says about understanding history applies to Fox's approach to presenting that opinion: cherry-picking gives a warped view. I left the link to the actual opinion for those curious to understand the court's reasoning.

[Salty Again]

... I don't know of Fox even giving their opinion.

Me-own opinion is certainly me-own carefully reasoned thought on this.
And WHY I don't agree-with the Court's decision... Or yours, I reckon.

#### Salty

[ICU 812]

OK, so maybe I did "spin" the OP a little. I do apologize for that, but still . . .I was somewhat shocked when I read the headlines.

I cannot imagine that this State Supreme Court will be allowed to stand by any federal court let alone SCOTUS. I would think that any other State's Atourhy General would have the legal standing to bring it to the high court.

If allowed to stand, the implications for other, similar actions are disturbing.

And no, I did not read the decision. I am limited some by a visual impairment that makes wading through more than a few pargraphs very difficult. I used to do that sort of reading, but just csnnot any longer.

[Tigbitties38]

So you decided to misrepresent the information. You made the decision to post misinformation as fact.

No surprise there.

The surprise there is that you admitted it.

How many other times have you done it? You're a trumpy, you've had to done it a lot.

Originally Posted by ICU 812

OK, so maybe I did "spin" the OP a little. I do apologize for that, but still . . .I was somewhat shocked when I read the headlines.

I cannot imagine that this State Supreme Court will be allowed to stand by any federal court let alone SCOTUS. I would think that any other State's Atourhy General would have the legal standing to bring it to the high court.

If allowed to stand, the implications for other, similar actions are disturbing.

And no, I did not read the decision. I am limited some by a visual impairment that makes wading through more than a few pargraphs very difficult. I used to do that sort of reading, but just csnnot any longer.

[biomed1]

Of the Following . . .

#4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

[ICU 812]

Name calling again:

I have apologized and further will withdraw the frivolous characterizations of the Hawaiian legislature and state Supreme Court.

However one characterizes their actions, the legislature and high court in Hawaii decided that a specific portion of the Constitution did not apply to the state of Hawaii or to its citizens and may be ignored by them.

To my knowledge, the only way to change the Constitution is provided for in the main text though the amendment process.

This cannot be allowed to stand, or the immense tragedy of the Civil war will have meant nothing.

[ICU 812]

I'd like to hear from a liberal on this forum who can explain why the Hawaii law should stand and why it should be allowed to stand.

I'd like to hear someone defend this action and tell us all why it does not present a danger to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution more generally.

[Yssup Rider]

Good for Hawai’i.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I'd like to hear from a liberal on this forum who can explain why the Hawaii law should stand and why it should be allowed to stand.

I'd like to hear someone defend this action and tell us all why it does not present a danger to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution more generally.

easy. the case is based on the incorrect assumption that the US Constitution blocks Hawaii's gun laws which this dude violated. he claims he bought the gun in FL in about 2014 then moved to Hawaii, got caught without proper registration carrying a handgun.


he's wrong and the US Supreme Court won't touch this


and if they do they will uphold it 9-0

[ICU 812]

We will revisit this when it does come to SCOTUS review.

Not a constitutional law expert my self, but I am under the impression that SCOTUS has already ruled on that In the Heller and Burris decisions.

Federal SCOTTUS decisions that have previously been rendered can not be voided by state legislatures or their stste Supreme Court.