IT IS TIME TO MAKE THE JUDICIARY "INTELLECTUALLY RESPONSIBLE" FOR THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE. IF THEY WANT RESPECT, MAKE THEM EARN IT. THE RULES OF LOGIC APPLY TO EVERYONE.

Since I have come to believe that the AWE AND RESPECT, that historically has been given to Judges in the U.S., is in many cases undeserved, I see no reason to continue to pretend that many of those occupying the "BENCH" are little more than MARGINAL INTELLECTS who are nothing more then POLITICAL STOOGES, who lack the REASONING SKILLS TO PROPERLY FULFILL THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE THEY OCCUPY.

For this ARTICLE, let's start by looking at the GUN CONTROL CONTROVERSY.

Here are the first two AMENDMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty straightforward, right? Or does it. READ VERY CAREFULLY the wording in both amendments. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Suppose you had never read the Amendments before, and were asked how they differ,WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?

I know what I would say: THAT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE RIGHTS PERTAINING TO:

- FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

- FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

- FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.

- TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES.

Are listed without specific qualifications. There is NO GUIDANCE ABOUT HOW EACH RIGHT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES.

Yet, in the Second Amendment, THERE IS A DIRECTION, OUTLINED SPECIFICALLY, TO GUIDE THE JUDICIARY IN THE WAY THE LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED. IT'S A QUALIFICATION THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT HAVE. 

TO BE CONTINUED