Question for you Constitutionalists out there

[Deleted member 20426]

removing or modifying the 1st 10 is far different than additional amendments to expand freedoms.

Your argument lacks both law and logic. The weight assigned a bill of right has nothing to do with age or numerical order. Yes, sometimes they interact, but each is judged on its individual language, and an older one is definitely doesn't get constitutional points for being 1 or 2 versus 10, 14, 18, etc. Their order and passage date does not denote graver import. Order and Age doesn't equal wisdom or beauty within the framework of the bill of rights. THE BILL OF RIGHTS DON'T EXPAND FREEDOMS!

Simply put, the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the government's ability to pass laws or impose regulations affecting individuals. The bill of rights are often ambiguous when applied to specific factual situations, and the interpretation thereof is extremely difficult because strict constructional ism, as the right wing court calls it, is a false proposition that borders on a fraudulent representation.

The founders did not, and could not have foreseen the changes in society and the world around us. We. Would be science fiction and magic to them. They couldn't comprehend the technology, the industries, and our tolerance and acceptance of different subcultures. So,we have a constitution that necessarily grows with the times, facts, and opinions.

Very little legislation will pass and things will normalize within a year. Don't freak out.

 

[PatrickHenry]

My response with respect to the Second Amendment is:

"Bearing arms for a lawful purpose. . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." United States v Cruikshank (1876)

Even the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right given by the government. You had the Right BEFORE the Constitution existed and it is an unalienable Right.

 

[04redmach1]

I will move.

 

[bxtreme24]

Divided we stand, united we fall.

 

[jlcnuke]

Here is a question for those of you who love guns and also believe whole-heartedly in the constitution (like me):

Would you support repealing the second amendment and abolishing the individual right to bear arms if it was ratified by a 3/4 majority of the states?

The framers of our nation made a very important decision in Article V of the constitution, which says we the people are able to change the constitution with a 3/4 vote of the states (via congress or directly through state campaigns).

So, lets say 3/4 of the states of this nation voted to repeal the 2nd amendment, doing so through a completely legal and constitutional process. Would you lay down/turn in your arms, or would you deny the right of the people to do as the constitution dictates? Whats more important and holds more weight, the second amendment or article V of the body of the constitution?

Honest answers, please.

Article V holds more importance to me. The Constitution is an amazing document which allows the laws and government to reflect the will and desires of the people of this country, as interpreted by their representatives. A revocation of the 2nd Amendment would make me seriously consider my choice (and it is a choice) to live in and show allegiance to this country. However, a country and society which is ruled by law determined by the minority is more akin to a dictatorship than a republic. If the will of the people (those who impart power to the government) was to abolish something I believe in strongly, then I would seek to place my roots where my values were more acceptable to society. In your scenario, I would look for any legal way to take my property and myself to another place which was more in-line with my beliefs regarding the rights of the people before my beliefs regarding the balance of power between a government and its people could be further eroded. If no such place existed, I would accept that I live in a world and society which rejects my beliefs lawfully and pray that the reasons I hold those beliefs never meet their worst case scenario situation.

 

[Constitution Hour]

I think prohibition is probably the perfect example, although it didnt touch the BoR it was still widely ignored despite a 3/4 vote.

I beg to differ. Read the 1oth amendment. Just because a right is not specified does not mean it is not "included" in the Bil of Rights.

 

[Constitution Hour]

Your argument lacks both law and logic. The weight assigned a bill of right has nothing to do with age or numerical order. Yes, sometimes they interact, but each is judged on its individual language, and an older one is definitely doesn't get constitutional points for being 1 or 2 versus 10, 14, 18, etc. Their order and passage date does not denote graver import. Order and Age doesn't equal wisdom or beauty within the framework of the bill of rights. THE BILL OF RIGHTS DON'T EXPAND FREEDOMS!

Simply put, the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the government's ability to pass laws or impose regulations affecting individuals. The bill of rights are often ambiguous when applied to specific factual situations, and the interpretation thereof is extremely difficult because strict constructional ism, as the right wing court calls it, is a false proposition that borders on a fraudulent representation.

The founders did not, and could not have foreseen the changes in society and the world around us. We. Would be science fiction and magic to them. They couldn't comprehend the technology, the industries, and our tolerance and acceptance of different subcultures. So,we have a constitution that necessarily grows with the times, facts, and opinions.

Very little legislation will pass and things will normalize within a year. Don't freak out.

The logic in the posters statement is sound. There is a distinct difference between removing,repealing,abolishing one of the original 10 amendments and adding additional amendments. The legal weight of the first ten amendments is due to the fact that they are specifically listed. That does not mean they are any more or less a right than those not listed, however by inclusion they are accepted and known,identified. While other rights remain more obscure or uncertain,although presumably included by the 10th amendment. The inclusion of a specific right by amendment does not create that right we can agree. So I guess I am ata bit of a loss in your logic regarding the post. While I will agree that the 13th amendment did not grant the right of freedom to those who were enslaved, by inclusion in the Bill of rights it most certainly expanded that right in practice.

 

[Lynn2216]

No way. The Constitution is a house of cards, remove 1 amendment and they're all open to be destroyed. It's great people are FINALLY starting to contact their elected officials in droves letting them know how WE feel and what WE want.

 

[gr8full2day]

NoI would not support such an action in any way....it more likely to have zombies in my garage in the morning, but either way...I would not comply with that in any form.

 

[Patronus]

Well, whatever the body occupying the premises of and acting in the name, however fraudulently, of the United States Government chooses to do to the constitution, I choose to obey and hold sacred the ACTUAL Constitution. Not the evil men who swear to support and defend it, while eviscerating it from within. We are entering into a period of crisis.