- Banned
- #281
Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.Amendments can be amended.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.Amendments can be amended.
Amendments can be amended.
You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.
Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.Amendments can be amended.
He's right. LOLWell, this could get interesting...
Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures
WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn̵…nypost.com
View attachment 478215
Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.Amendments can be amended.
Bad argument.
The actually basis for rights not being absolute to any one individual, is ONLY due to the fact a compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.
For example, free speech most certainly IS absolute.
When you make laws against libel, slander, inciting violence, etc., you are NOT giving government arbitrary authority, but only balancing the rights of one person against others they may be illegally harming.
In no way does that diminish the rights of the person being restricted.
It is just recognizing the higher importance of those other rights being defended.
Religious freedom should be absolute.
Laws that dictate stores be closed on Sundays then are illegal for example.
When you correctly limit religious activity, like Old Testament believers who would stone adulterers, that does not infringe upon religious freedom because it is not dictating or restricting religious freedom, but simply putting the right to life of the potential victim higher.
Compromising and establishing priorities between rights of individuals is not illegal.
But government arbitrarily imposing its own values, like the war on drugs, is totally and completely illegal.
Rights are and must remain absolute, always.
Which is why it obviously is illegal to prevent convicted felons from voting, gun rights, etc., after their sentence is over.
Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated or vacated on the whim of legislators.
Legislators have no such authority, and there is no way for us to give them that authority.
You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.
You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.
ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.
Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.
Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.Amendments can be amended.
Bad argument.
The actually basis for rights not being absolute to any one individual, is ONLY due to the fact a compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.
For example, free speech most certainly IS absolute.
When you make laws against libel, slander, inciting violence, etc., you are NOT giving government arbitrary authority, but only balancing the rights of one person against others they may be illegally harming.
In no way does that diminish the rights of the person being restricted.
It is just recognizing the higher importance of those other rights being defended.
Religious freedom should be absolute.
Laws that dictate stores be closed on Sundays then are illegal for example.
When you correctly limit religious activity, like Old Testament believers who would stone adulterers, that does not infringe upon religious freedom because it is not dictating or restricting religious freedom, but simply putting the right to life of the potential victim higher.
Compromising and establishing priorities between rights of individuals is not illegal.
But government arbitrarily imposing its own values, like the war on drugs, is totally and completely illegal.
Rights are and must remain absolute, always.
Which is why it obviously is illegal to prevent convicted felons from voting, gun rights, etc., after their sentence is over.
Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated or vacated on the whim of legislators.
Legislators have no such authority, and there is no way for us to give them that authority.
Bad Argument.
When you say "... compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.", you are effectively saying that rights are not absolute...defeating your own argument.
You also say:
"Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated....legislatures have no such authority"
Yet the legislatures of the confederate states violated the rights of hundreds of thousands of African Americans for many years.
Finally, according to your interpretation, I must have the religious freedom to have human sacrifices as long as those being sacrificed didn't object...and get a tax exemption to boot.
You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.
You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.
ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.
Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.
Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.
With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.
In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.
He's right. LOLWell, this could get interesting...
Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures
WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn̵…nypost.com
View attachment 478215
Scalia agrees with Kagan that Second Amendment rights are "not unlimited"
Matt Drudge highlighted a post by the website KaganWatch.com that stated that Elena Kagan wrote "the Second Amendment ... enjoys 'strong, but not unlimited protection' " -- apparently to suggest that Kagan was hostile to gun rights. In fact, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia...www.mediamatters.org
You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.
You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.
ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.
Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.
Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.
With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.
In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.
A very idealistic, but unrealistic view of rights.
In reality, once a person is born, the only right they have is the right to die.
All other rights are theoretical constructs agreed upon in some sort of social contract.
"We the people..." have agreed on the rights in the Constitution.
Americans in general have agreed upon the concept of "Inalienable Rights" as stated in the Declaration of Independence".
These are all social constructs... they do not really exist in nature.
Did the Jews in 1930s Germany have such rights?
We have rights because WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.
But mostly we tend to disagree that other people have rights!
I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wroteNO, dumbshitdumbass you can't comprehend what you readThe 1st amendment repealed the 18th?Nope try again.If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absoluteWhile true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.
Who told you that?
The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.
Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th
Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.dumbass you can't comprehend what you readThe 1st amendment repealed the 18th?Nope try again.If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absoluteWhile true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.
Who told you that?
The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.
Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th
The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.
jo is intentionally fucking up so he will be forced to step down so harris can become the next presidentJoe Dufus stole the election, doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights and he wants to nuke Americans that don't agree with the filthy Democrat Party's agenda of making the US a Socialist shithole.
Why isn't the sonofabitch being impeached?
the only purpose for federal jurisdiction was to ensure Americans citizens rights were protectedNot bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulateNo, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.well regulated in the 18th century wasYes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------what does shall not be infringed mean to you?
I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.
IMHO
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated
Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.
The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.
the only purpose for federal jurisdiction was to ensure Americans citizens rights were protectedNot bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulateNo, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.well regulated in the 18th century wasYes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------what does shall not be infringed mean to you?
I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.
IMHO
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated
Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.
The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.
The founders debated about having a second amendment right in the U.S. Constitution because some argued the states already had firearms rights protected within the constitution of all the states but they went on and added it to the U.S. CONSTITUTIONthe only purpose for federal jurisdiction was to ensure Americans citizens rights were protectedNot bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulateNo, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.well regulated in the 18th century wasYes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------what does shall not be infringed mean to you?
I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.
IMHO
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated
Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.
The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.
Correct, but that comes from the 14th amendment, and did not allow for federal intervention until 1868.
You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.
You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.
ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.
Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.
Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.
With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.
In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.
A very idealistic, but unrealistic view of rights.
In reality, once a person is born, the only right they have is the right to die.
All other rights are theoretical constructs agreed upon in some sort of social contract.
"We the people..." have agreed on the rights in the Constitution.
Americans in general have agreed upon the concept of "Inalienable Rights" as stated in the Declaration of Independence".
These are all social constructs... they do not really exist in nature.
Did the Jews in 1930s Germany have such rights?
We have rights because WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.
But mostly we tend to disagree that other people have rights!
He's right. LOLWell, this could get interesting...
Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures
WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn̵…nypost.com
View attachment 478215
Scalia agrees with Kagan that Second Amendment rights are "not unlimited"
Matt Drudge highlighted a post by the website KaganWatch.com that stated that Elena Kagan wrote "the Second Amendment ... enjoys 'strong, but not unlimited protection' " -- apparently to suggest that Kagan was hostile to gun rights. In fact, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia...www.mediamatters.org
Amendments can be amended.
Really?Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.Obviously?No, it isn't.The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.
That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.
What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?
Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.