From the Supreme Warrants blog: As I’ve written before, the Supreme Courts martial law cases of the past few years have left us with some really, really, REALLY important and profound questions about the role of law and the meaning of the Constitution in a post-9/11 world.
The answer, of course, is that the Constitution is the only thing that makes sense in the face of these challenges.
So the question of what the Constitution means when it says it applies to us in the 21st century has to do with whether or not we have the power to use that power in a way that doesn’t involve the kind of state-enforced totalitarianism that the founders feared.
This has long been the issue in the American legal tradition, and the court has not always been the most sympathetic court to this kind of power grab.
In the 1820s, the Court was deeply divided over the scope of the powers of the federal government.
But in the 20th century, the court started to look more and more like a court of appeals, arguing that the federal constitution doesn’t contain an explicit prohibition on military occupation of the states and that states were free to go back to their own constitutions and decide what kind of government they wanted.
If that’s true, then the Supreme court has a problem.
The justices have to decide whether or no the federal Constitution is enforceable by state-based courts.
What is it?
It’s an old question: What is the scope and scope of a constitutional right?
If the question is answered “no,” then there’s no constitutional right at all.
The question is whether the federal constitutional authority to exercise this power can be used to enforce state-imposed restrictions on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
If so, then a “right to keep and bear arms” is a right to carry arms.
How did this all start?
In 1803, Congress passed the Second Amendment, which gave citizens the right to own guns.
For decades, gun rights advocates and gun control advocates argued that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution didn’t prohibit the federal governments power to make laws regulating arms.
The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits Congress from regulating the ownership or carrying of arms.
But the Second and Ninth Amendments both make clear that federal laws regulating the right of the people to keep arms are in addition to the power of the state governments to do so.
When did the Supreme, and perhaps other courts, start to see this as a problem?
It’s important to note that when we think of “right” and “right-to-carry,” we tend to think of something that comes out of the Supreme courts and other federal courts.
The Ninth and Second Amendments are a bit more nebulous, and it’s not clear what sort of gun control laws might be allowed in a given state or even within a given city.
Yet the idea that the Supreme can’t make guns legal in a state, or that states are free to enact restrictions on gun ownership, has become a common talking point among gun rights activists and gun rights supporters.
That’s why the Supreme has long argued that it cannot enforce federal laws that prohibit the exercise in their states of the right granted to the people by the Second or Ninth Amendments.
Why do some people think the Supreme should make gun control legal?
The right to keep, bear, and use arms is a fundamental right guaranteed by both the US and the US Constitutions.
It is not a power granted by the states, and federal law has never recognized that right.
One way to understand the Supreme’s role in the recent spate of court decisions about gun rights is to compare it to the Supreme-level power to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act.
A few years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of an American manufacturer of a gun, and in a unanimous decision, the justices declared that Sherman Antityrust Act was constitutional.
And in another recent case, the same court upheld the Sherman Act in a different context, as a way to prevent the United States from imposing on its citizens unreasonable restrictions on their right to bear arms.
The US Supreme has also been a frequent target of gun rights groups.
Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Judicial Court of Pennsylvania challenging the constitutionality of a state law that requires guns on public college campuses.
Critics have said that this law violates the Second amendment because it prohibits a gun from being carried on campus without a license.
But even if that argument were true, there’s not a lot of support for such a law.
On Monday, a federal judge in Chicago temporarily blocked the law from taking effect.
“It’s a reasonable regulation,” Chicago State University President Robert Zimmer said in an interview with WLS.
“It’s reasonable to say