It depends on the issue.
With gun rights, they tend to see the 2nd amendment through a keyhole and argue any pragmatic gun regs.
We could add an Amendment that Women and Men are equal under the law as well as paywise.
We could at that Abortion is a constitutional right for adults.
We could abolish the right to bear arms except for soilders and policemen.
We could make Spanish the 2nd offcial language in the US.
We could make a Amendment saying that standing armies in foreign lands is illegal.
An amendment making college education free for all that have the appitude and study in a resonable time.
I would argue that every freedom has some political aspect to it. Absolute freedom has a name; Anarchy, complete lack of freedom has a name; Despotism...... in between do we choose tyranny in all of it's forms, or do we maximize freedom for the individual and allow for the lattitude that liberty provides?
Well said. This is what makes the Constitution such an awesome document. Through it, we gave up some of our rights and empowered the government, albeit with a short leash, so that we could better function as a complex society.
How YOU interpret the Constitution is not really relevant. How the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, is. If you buy one, and a lawsuit is brought against you for doing so, and if the Supreme Court indicates that, based on the 2nd Amendment, what you did was legal, you can keep it. If not, then you can't. This is how things have worked for 200+ years.
Again: The Constitution clearly states that I have a Right that shall not be infringed.
Congress doesn't have the power to vote that Right away, and neither does the SCOTUS.
So if 50% plus 1 of society thinks that I can't own a rifle then I can't. Is that your position?
If they directly or indirectly (appointment by politicians) elect people who interpret the second amendment that way, than yes.
Take the case U.S. v Brown for instance, an attainder case in 1956, Yick Wo v Hopkins, 1886, the Slaughter-house cases, Aptheker v Secretary of state, quotations in the case of the Amistad, Calder v. Bull, 1798. Mculloch v. Maryland, 1819. This is just a small scattering, through two centuries of law.
The founders, as a group, did not win. The federalists prevailed over the antifederalists, who were against the constitution in entirety.
McCulloch versus Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
Do you have stats to back up the most scholars claim?
I'm pretty sure it wasn't carved into stone.
It was written on paper with ink right?
It didn't take decades, the issues became current and the motion to amend the constitution happened. I'm sure if there wast vast support for an amendment that we could vote on it in 2012. The Constitution is chiseled stone that gives us the parameters to add more too it.
The Constitution is the restraint that domesticated the federal government. Without that restraint, our federal government has reverted to a barbaric, natural state.
Most Reps and conservatives in general beleive that the constituion is carved in stone and cant be changed/ interperated.
I beleive that the constitution is a living constitution as can be reinterpreted by every generation. Otherwise issues like slavery and the emanipation of women would have to reflect the status of 1789.
The constitution can be seen as a road map, and when questions arise ie social security and HC that were unknown to the founding fathers , then we cant look for answers in such an old piece of paper.
And with good reason.It took 89 years to force an admendment through Congress to free the slaves and another 55 years to give women the right to vote.
The system is so against change that it takes decades and decades to make resonable reforms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?