texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people

[Into the Night]

A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.

WRONG. A 'living document' is not a constitution at all. You cannot void a constitution in this way.

[Into the Night]

This guy is a sock that I can’t put my finger on. The absurd claim that dictionaries don’t provide definitions of words has been used by someone else in the past, but I can’t recall who.

Doesn't matter. Dictionaries don't define words. Whoever it was understood the same thing about dictionaries.

Since you consider any like opinion proof of a sock, you must be a sock of StoneByStone, moon, Cypress, Adolf_Twitler, and a host of others.

[domer76]

Is there a gnat in the room?

[Into the Night]

jimmymccready A living document does not require what "framers or commentators" thought at the time.



Yes, the Constitution is a living document, that's why arguments against fail.

No. It is not a 'living document'. You cannot void the Constitution that way.

[Rune]

Why is it you people can't recognize the fact that Constitutional rights can be regulated, that no right, none, are absolute, ever one can be, and are, regulated, simple fact. Carrying long guns in public can be legally regulated

When will you acquire the definition of "shall not be infringed"?

[Into the Night]

Yes, the exception is a complete ban although at the time that only applied to federal legislation and not the states.

But those regulations advocated by gun-control supporters are possible and exist in various forms in many states. My point was that all the debate over the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is an interesting academic debate but does prevent most of those laws gun control people imply are being prevented by that interpretation.

WRONG. The right to self defense is inherent. There is NO designation of any weapon by type in the 2nd amendment.

[Into the Night]

But the people don't change constitutional interpretation---only the federal courts do so. The people didn't decide in the recent case that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the Constitution--it was a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.

You are one of "we the people"--how did you influence that decision?

No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

Of course the Constitution, through SCOTUS or the amendment process, adapts to new circumstances.

To suggest that it is "static" is barking mad and leads to political insanity.

No court has authority to change the Constitution. It can only be changed by the amendment process, which is specific. Only the States may change the Constitution, and only by the procedure outlined in the Constitution itself.

[Into the Night]

Yet, they have been doing so for 200+ years. It seems to be established law by now and the "we, the people" obviously accept it because we have done nothing to change it.

Lie. The Court does not have authority to usurp authority over the Constitution. Time makes no difference.

[Into the Night]

One can argue that SCOTUS has no constitutional mandate to interpret the Constitution in the light of the times, and that is their opinion, a wrong one.

Thomas Jefferson had his opinion, too, a decidedly minority one that has had little impact historically on the issue.

No court has authority over the Constitution. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

[Into the Night]

^There’s the idiot again, thinking he’s the author of the Constitution.

Lie.

[Into the Night]

Thank you for raising that point. What the Founders thought then really is immaterial now.

We all know TJ was boinking his slave and Maria Conway in France when the Constitution was being written in the US.

You cannot void the Constitution that way, dumbass.

[Phantasmal]

WRONG. The Constitution can ONLY be changed by States and ONLY through a specific means, listed in the Constitution itself.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[Into the Night]

One fucking thing for sure, YOU aren’t.

He never said he was, dumbass.

[Into the Night]

That is immaterial, StY: that was then and this is now. I have no desire to live in the world of 1793.

Since you have no desire to live under the Constitution...leave. No one is stopping you. May I suggest China or Cuba?

Accept some counsel: you are not enlightened, you have no special insight.

He actually read the Constitution. So did I. That's more than what can be said for you.

Instead you are working out inner frustrations because people do not take you seriously. That is not because they are assholes.

Psychoquackery.