Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ops33
It is also interesting to note that the scope of the 1st Amendment originally restricted Congress only (the first word of the 1st Amendment is "Congress") while the 2nd Amendment doesn't have that scope restriction. But the Constitution does allow fundamental rights to be restricted in the 5th Amendment, which reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14 posted on 05/08/2008 8:53:27 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Question_Assumptions
"But the Constitution does allow fundamental rights to be restricted"

Yes, but only through individual due process in a court of law. The fifth amendment reads, "No person shall be deprived ..." We may find a man guilty and take away his fundamental right to liberty by locking him up, but we may not lock up "all those under 18" or "all males".

Also, neither the federal government nor any state government currently recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right. That may change with this ruling.

20 posted on 05/08/2008 9:32:18 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Question_Assumptions
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

Every time I see this, I am reminded of the bulletproof wording of this Constitutional restriction. It allows NO qualifications whatsoever.

Yet, several instances of the federal government's gross violation of this right have occured, without challenge, where the feds allow the state court to try a crime and, if the verdict is "un-PC", to try the same crime, albeit it under a fraudulent different name in federal courts.

23 posted on 05/08/2008 9:51:39 AM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson