Posted on 02/18/2016 4:30:47 PM PST by Elderberry
Ever read the preamble?
Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The BOR recognizes God given rights, it prohibits the government from infringing or taking them away.
Mulon labe
Come and take it
The history books will then read....
“The Allied States of America were established on the ruins of the United States shortly after the end of the Second Civil War. Recognizing that the Constitution of 1787 needed some adjustments, the Interim Congress recommended several amendments to the surviving states, which passed them unanimously. Several of these, the Reaffirmation Amendments, affected the original Bill of Rights in various ways. The 29th Amendment, for example, explicitly restricted the government’s power of eminent domain to only taking property for government use, and mandated paying 5 times the current market value. The 30th Amendment clarified that public displays of religion at the state or local level were outside the jurisdiction of any national government or court. The 31st Amendment modified the 2nd Amendment by labeling attempts to infringe the right to bear arms as treason. Other amendments attacked what were correctly seen as abuses created by an out of control judicial branch. The 32nd Amendment would be a good example of this type. The new courts established by future Congresses would only be able to rule on the letter of the law, and were required to consider the meaning as intended by the Founders of 1787 or those who passed an amendment at the time. Nor would unelected judges exercise the tremendous power they had before the war. The 34th Amendment required that national referendums be held on judges appointed at the national level at 4 year intervals, with those who failed to achieve 50% approval forced to step down. Social matters were not neglected either- the 35th Amendment left abortion to the states, and the 36th specifically designated marriage as between one man, and one woman. After electing a new Congress and a new President, the 100 million people set to work rebuilding the charred landscape, struggling to avoid starvation amid the ruins of once great cities, imposing law and order locally with often stark violence, and trying to regain much that was lost.”- History of the Allied States, 13th Edition, 2068.
Until amended or repealed. Nothing in the Constitution as written prevents that from happening.
Oops, don’t know what happen there:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Note the declatory and restrictive wording.
If one can be repealed, they can all be repealed...they’re not really God Given rights, are they?
Uh no, that is what the 2nd A is for.
Not much into history are ya?
One more justice like Sotomeyer or Ginsburg, and the 2nd amendment will require you to be a member of the militia to own a fire arm. Not much in to reality are ya.
You can’t repeal a right that was never within the states power to grant, the BOR consists of fundamental tenants that “secure” the unalienable rights of life and liberty, the government hasn’t granted them, it has documented them.
The Second is noteworthy in my mind for its call out of that, THE right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Just my $0.02 worth...
Have the supremes look up the word “inalienable”. My rights come from God. Some schmuck in a robe can’t take them away.
CC
times 1000
Nothing - self defense a Common sense natural right only affirmed by the 2nd amendment.
I’ve had fun pointing that out to atheists, “oh, then the state grants you rights and privileges? Well, that means it can take them away too”...
Ah, I get you now. You want to conflate what the constitution says vs what the libtwits say it is.
IOW, you now want to move the goal post from your original ignorant argument now that I have proved you wrong...to what the "reality" of liberals on the bench.
"FRind" take your trolling down the street, I have no time for the likes of you.
Let me reiterate something to you, the people who bear arms will preserve your idiotic underserved freedom, no matter how undeserving you are of it....it's how we roll.
Civil war, of course...
Must be at least one of them here on this thread....yeesh, I can't believe the ignorance of some of these people.
Sad...and scary to say the least.
I am a gun owner too. Do you know what tongue-in-cheek is? Sheesh
It was prior to the civil war. Article 1, section 2, paragraph 3 - the 3/5 compromise for example. There was also article 4, section 2, clause 3, the fugitive slave clause which mandated that escaped slaves caught in the North had to be returned to their owners.
They will attack clips, ammunition and how and what it’s made of.
Right, but a real threat does come from the Supreme Court. All it would take is a majority to decide that the 2A was meant to protect not the rights of the individual, but the rights of the states to form militias.
So there still would be a 2A; it just would be an empty shell, devoid of any real meaning. Just like the 10A is today.
The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret law vis a vis the Constitution. Somehow over the years, that court has found that somewhere in the 14th amendment to the Constitution there is “right” to privacy and incumbent on that right is a women’s “right” to have an abortion. That is the law of the land. Some how the that Court determined that Government could condemn your property, not for a road or a school building, but for a project to improve their tax base. That is the law of the land. The could in the future determine that you do not have a right to own a fire for self defense, when that happens, that will be the law of the land. As far as my underserved idiotic freedom is concerned, I spent 25 years in the service of the American people in out Navy and have owned many fire arms, antique and modern over my life time. What I am saying is that the Court can in fact radically change its interpretation of the Second Amendment and depending on who replaces Scalia may well do so. If you are incapable of seeing that fact, then you have absolutely zero concept of modern reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.