A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
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.
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?
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.
Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.
they do not have the constitutional power to do that
state redistricting issues are not within the purview of the federal court system. That is for the states/people alone to decide.
In Texas? I voted Libertarian. that is the only influence allowed, not having the federal court usurp power that doesn't belong to them
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
That is not a power that SCOTUS has. they have no constitutional authority to redefine the constitution
allowing the government to redefine it's powers and limitations is the insanity. it's the death of freedom.
the government was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. - thomas jefferson
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
jimmymccready (07-20-2019)
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.
Russian trolls and their supporters go on Ignore, automatically: no second chance.
Bookmarks