Posted on 10/05/2017 11:43:03 AM PDT by NRx
>
By all means, try to repeal it. I am serious, this is a big step forward for the NY Times. They are proposing repealing the Second Amendment which IMPLIES by the process outlined in the Constitution.
>
I beg to differ. The ability of a Leftist to hold conflicting views on the same subject w/o mental strain is well known.
To presume they acknowledge the only lawful process to repeal any existing Amendment would ALSO presume they acknowledge the Right to begin. Which, in turn, states, in plain English, shall not be infringed.
Yet, they are one of the most vocal vs. 2nd. Course, those on the right couldn’t debate themselves out of a wet paper bag, and w/ ‘friends’ like the NRA, AGREEING with further infringements....
>
>>
What the NY Times really means is, “yo, some judge out there, just end this.”
>>
That’ll never work because the United States Constitution has very specific language on how to add Amendments—one that even Lefty judges won’t touch.
>
No. Judges can/have/will (until slapped down by Congress...like THAT will happen) just keep creating rights out of whole cloth, decreeing based upon em upon ‘penumbras’ and ‘precedent’.
I can’t recall hearing about any case judged plainly upon the Constitution and the writing of the time. Hell, most don’t even use case law before the early 1900’s Socialist take-over.
Disarming the populace leads to genocide
>
why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?
Because progs are irrational ideologues
>
Scarily, it’s not even because the Right has an articulate counter!
- It’s a Right, end of story
- Want it gone? remove it legally...Constitutional Amendment.
- No EXISTING law or NEW law would have stopped XYZ
- Repealing the 2nd would NOT stop ‘gun violence’ (hell, govt can’t keep ‘em from being made within in PRISON!)
- etc.
And, because EVERYONE thinks our govt could *NEVER* fall so low (beside Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.), the whole Warsaw Ghetto, 100M+ killed in 20th century by govt, etc. aren’t even a topic of discussion (and, I’d bet, they’d make anyone bringing it up look like a kook).
What you say is true, but this piece is by far the most honest and well argued anti gun position. Most Progs are deathly afraid of making the argument, or even hinting at it. And his slap at Barky and same sex marriage was humorous.
You're right-- the only reason to repeal the 2nd is that the government has in its collectivist mind to will to kill off undesirable Americans.
Somebody’s gotten to Bret Stephens, apparently.
Actually having the guts to cry for repeal is more honest than pretending the legislation they want is currently constitutional. And it will further alienate middle America.
No, that’s not true, anything can be repealed or changed except for one thing
“No state may without it’s consent be deprived of it’s equal suffrage in the Senate.” Meaning a proposal to give Cali a third Senate seat (which has been suggested by libs) would require ratification by all 50 states.
But an amendment to give each state a 3rd seat would only require the usual 2/3s of Congress and 3/4s of States to ratify because 3 each is sill equal. Cutting it down to 1 each also still equal.
Repeal the 14th Amendment. It was only useful in it’s original context for about 30 years & it has been used incorrectly for about 60 years & has caused us much more trouble.
Kick out every ‘illegal’ who claims hey were born here-—but NOT of American parents—and send them & their family back to country of origin.
IF we did this with first class flying, it still would save this country money in the long run.
At a current cost of $135,000,000,000 (billion) the illegals are killing the American taxpayer. That is almost $370 MILLION per day. Think about that.
As you may recall, I would support an amendment to give each state a third Senator (and set the national size of the House at 3 Representatives per Senator, which, with 50 states, would be 450 Representatives). That way there would be a Senate seat up every two years in every state, thus giving voters in all states the ability to participate in both House and Senate elections every two years. And setting the aggregate number of Representatives at three per Senator (i) eliminates possible hanky-panky by a future Congress and (ii) returns the ratio of Representatives to Senators to one close to the one original set by the Framers, thereby giving increased weight in the Electoral College to candidates who win more states. In 2016, Trump would have won 336-253 and in 2000 Bush would have won 301-288, in each case with 295 electoral votes needed for a majority).
Yes, I recall. Most freepers would balk at adding members of Congress but I’d support both going to 3 Senators and a bit of a House expansion, and a fixed ratio is a good idea.
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.