Bill of Rights

[TNHarley]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789. There were no nuclear bombs to consider. There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph. There were no police officers. (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today) I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions. However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak? They can't ever be removed? or can they? Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a link to anyone other than a fringe kook who thinks individuals should have nuclear bombs.

It was our fringe kook forefathers who thought the people should be militarily capable of defeating the government if it ever stopped too far out of bounds. We as Americans don't believe that any more.

Second Amendment

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.

It is Illegal for a citizen to own a nuke and it is perfectly legal to enforce that law Strategic weapons are not personal weapons.In the Constitution it is illegal for a State to own an armed Naval vessel which in 1789 was the only strategic weapon we had. So no stretch to include individuals in that ban. Be specific and list for us ANY Judge that disagrees? As for road blocks they also are perfectly legal nd YES cops can ask for and recieve ID if you don't provide it they can hold you till they establish your identity also perfectly legal.

Courts have disagreed with your finding.

Really? Link to a court decision that says individuals have the right to own a nuclear bomb?

There isnt one. However there isnt a law that states citizens cant own one.
The problem, which would make it inpossible to own is, the govt owns all fissile materials

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

I sure hope not. I know a lot of nitwits are clamoring for it, but I'll fight them tooth an nail.

I wish an easy answer existed. The Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. HOWEVER, what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional. We, the people, are the de jure arbiters of what the law is.

Then the High Court began reinterpreting their own decisions. So, while the earliest court decisions interpreted the Constitution consistent with the intent of the founding fathers, the United States Supreme Court strays to the left with each subsequent reinterpretation. Today, on many issues, especially the Second Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has changed the law 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended.

REGARDLESS of how the courts rule or what statutes change, the real key is to know what your unalienable Rights are and to never surrender or compromise them. It should not matter what kind of government the masses put into place. Unalienable Rights are non-negotiable.

 

[Blues Man]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789. There were no nuclear bombs to consider. There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph. There were no police officers. (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today) I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions. However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak? They can't ever be removed? or can they? Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a link to anyone other than a fringe kook who thinks individuals should have nuclear bombs.

It was our fringe kook forefathers who thought the people should be militarily capable of defeating the government if it ever stopped too far out of bounds. We as Americans don't believe that any more.

Second Amendment

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.

You're a blithering moron.

Keep and bear arms refers to personal weapons, not large ordnance such as cannons (or nuclear bombs). Learn something about history, swampy.

Did you see the part where I said we as Americans don't believe that any more?

So you speak for all Americans

What if Americans believed in slavery again?

Segregation?

One of the major reasons of legal protection of rights is so the mob can't take them away

 

[whoisit]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789. There were no nuclear bombs to consider. There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph. There were no police officers. (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today) I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions. However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak? They can't ever be removed? or can they? Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a link to anyone other than a fringe kook who thinks individuals should have nuclear bombs.

It was our fringe kook forefathers who thought the people should be militarily capable of defeating the government if it ever stopped too far out of bounds. We as Americans don't believe that any more.

Second Amendment

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.

It is Illegal for a citizen to own a nuke and it is perfectly legal to enforce that law Strategic weapons are not personal weapons.In the Constitution it is illegal for a State to own an armed Naval vessel which in 1789 was the only strategic weapon we had. So no stretch to include individuals in that ban. Be specific and list for us ANY Judge that disagrees? As for road blocks they also are perfectly legal nd YES cops can ask for and recieve ID if you don't provide it they can hold you till they establish your identity also perfectly legal.

Please cite the law that makes nuclear arms illegal in regards to citizenship ownership.

I agree it DOES allow for us to be as armed as the government but in this salad bowl of fruits and nuts it is scary to even think of some loose nut with a nuke.

 

[whoisit]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

I sure hope not. I know a lot of nitwits are clamoring for it, but I'll fight them tooth an nail.

I wish an easy answer existed. The Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. HOWEVER, what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional. We, the people, are the de jure arbiters of what the law is.

Then the High Court began reinterpreting their own decisions. So, while the earliest court decisions interpreted the Constitution consistent with the intent of the founding fathers, the United States Supreme Court strays to the left with each subsequent reinterpretation. Today, on many issues, especially the Second Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has changed the law 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended.

REGARDLESS of how the courts rule or what statutes change, the real key is to know what your unalienable Rights are and to never surrender or compromise them. It should not matter what kind of government the masses put into place. Unalienable Rights are non-negotiable.

Ruling from the bench is par for the course now. Our judges have turned into dictators. They no longer use constitutional law.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789. There were no nuclear bombs to consider. There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph. There were no police officers. (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today) I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions. However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak? They can't ever be removed? or can they? Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

"I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions"

Go ahead and tell any conservative that he can't have a nuclear bomb and he will pull out his copy of the constitution and DEMAND that you show him WHERE in the constitution it says that!


When it comes to rights and the constitution cons operate from 2 directions;

if they want to do something and the law says "no" they will say "where in the constitution does it say that I can NOT do that"

but when a sane and rational person wants to do something and a con is opposed to it he will say "where in the constitution does it say you CAN do that?"....

see the diff?

they can do what ever they want to because the constitution does NOT forbid it!

everyone else can't do what they want because the constitution doesn't ALLOW it!

pretty clever of them.....

tobacco and pot might be good examples;

they can smoke tobacco because the constitution doesn't say they can't.
you can't smoke pot because the constitution doesn't say you can.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions"
Go ahead and tell any conservative that he can't have a nuclear bomb and he will pull out his copy of the constitution and DEMAND that you show him WHERE in the constitution it says that!

This is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty - the number of conservatives that think this approaches statistical zero.

When it comes to rights and the constitution cons operate from 2 directions;
if they want to do something and the law says "no" they will say "where in the constitution does it say that I can NOT do that"

Another absurd and unsupportable proposition.

but when a sane and rational person wants to do something and a con is opposed to it he will say "where in the constitution does it say you CAN do that?"....

This is a perfectly reasonable question. You disagree?

 

[whoisit]

I'm sure no same person would want a nuke but the intentions at the time was to have a citizenry strong enough to stop the government from abusing their powers over the people.
At the time guess they didn't realize just how dangerous weapons could become .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It was our fringe kook forefathers who thought the people should be militarily capable of defeating the government if it ever stopped too far out of bounds. We as Americans don't believe that any more.

Second Amendment

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.

It is Illegal for a citizen to own a nuke and it is perfectly legal to enforce that law Strategic weapons are not personal weapons.In the Constitution it is illegal for a State to own an armed Naval vessel which in 1789 was the only strategic weapon we had. So no stretch to include individuals in that ban. Be specific and list for us ANY Judge that disagrees? As for road blocks they also are perfectly legal nd YES cops can ask for and recieve ID if you don't provide it they can hold you till they establish your identity also perfectly legal.

Courts have disagreed with your finding.

Really? Link to a court decision that says individuals have the right to own a nuclear bomb?

Road blocks for the purpose of seizing drugs has been determined illegal.

You said all roadblocks were illegal and they are not.

They should be. Clear cut violation of the Constitution since a fishing expedition without probable cause is not reasonable.

 

[presonorek]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789. There were no nuclear bombs to consider. There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph. There were no police officers. (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today) I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions. However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak? They can't ever be removed? or can they? Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a link to anyone other than a fringe kook who thinks individuals should have nuclear bombs.

It was our fringe kook forefathers who thought the people should be militarily capable of defeating the government if it ever stopped too far out of bounds. We as Americans don't believe that any more.

Second Amendment

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.

It is Illegal for a citizen to own a nuke and it is perfectly legal to enforce that law Strategic weapons are not personal weapons.In the Constitution it is illegal for a State to own an armed Naval vessel which in 1789 was the only strategic weapon we had. So no stretch to include individuals in that ban. Be specific and list for us ANY Judge that disagrees? As for road blocks they also are perfectly legal nd YES cops can ask for and recieve ID if you don't provide it they can hold you till they establish your identity also perfectly legal.

Please cite the law that makes nuclear arms illegal in regards to citizenship ownership.

I agree it DOES allow for us to be as armed as the government but in this salad bowl of fruits and nuts it is scary to even think of some loose nut with a nuke.

Lots of organizations own nukes. They have only been used twice. I am not sure why that is. Nobody uses them. I am not complaining. I just think a product that has only been used twice would normally become obsolete but they keep making those things. I don' think a loose nut with a nuke is a threat. It does seems scary but history tells me that isn't a concern.

 

[SandSquid]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional.

.

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses. So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy

 

[Wyatt earp]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789. There were no nuclear bombs to consider. There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph. There were no police officers. (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today) I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions. However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak? They can't ever be removed? or can they? Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

Times change...People never do





.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional.

.

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses. So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy

What you just said makes NO sense in this context.

Appellate review means the United States Supreme Court is to review the law and be the final arbiter. of what the law is. That does not mean that once they listen to the arguments of 9th and 11 th Circuit Courts of Appeal, who may have opposite rulings, then the United States Supreme Court rules, they can't come back and then RE-INTREPRET their own decision. They are co - equals with other branches of the government.

It is the job of the legislature (the legislative branch) to make new laws. Today, when the United States Supreme Court reverses its own decisions, it is called legislating from the bench.

As to the special situations, that does not include the normal day to day ruling of what a particular statute means.

 

[dblack]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional.

.

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses. So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy

looks like you misquoted here.

 

[SandSquid]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional.

.

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses. So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy

What you just said makes NO sense in this context.

Appellate review means the United States Supreme Court is to review the law and be the final arbiter. of what the law is. That does not mean that once they listen to the arguments of 9th and 11 th Circuit Courts of Appeal, who may have opposite rulings, then the United States Supreme Court rules, they can't come back and then RE-INTREPRET their own decision. They are co - equals with other branches of the government.

It is the job of the legislature (the legislative branch) to make new laws. Today, when the United States Supreme Court reverses its own decisions, it is called legislating from the bench.

As to the special situations, that does not include the normal day to day ruling of what a particular statute means.

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional.

.

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses. So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy

What you just said makes NO sense in this context.

Appellate review means the United States Supreme Court is to review the law and be the final arbiter. of what the law is. That does not mean that once they listen to the arguments of 9th and 11 th Circuit Courts of Appeal, who may have opposite rulings, then the United States Supreme Court rules, they can't come back and then RE-INTREPRET their own decision. They are co - equals with other branches of the government.

It is the job of the legislature (the legislative branch) to make new laws. Today, when the United States Supreme Court reverses its own decisions, it is called legislating from the bench.

As to the special situations, that does not include the normal day to day ruling of what a particular statute means.

What you are talking about is horizontal stare decisis. Many states have passed laws that it must be followed. You are making the claim that it is federally enforced. Can you show me the Constitutional or federal law for that where the Constitution or legislative branch passed a law to enforce stare decisis at the Supreme Court level? Or are you just making it up? Like the Constitution says, Supreme Court powers are held back by "Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congressional regulation enforcing stare decisis? Or are you making that up?

I agree I would like the SC to follow stare decisis. but that needs to come from Congress, just like it does in many states who have passed laws to enforce that. I would also like changes to the lobbying system used in politics, and term limits for Congress. But me wanting that doesn't mean it's Unconstitutional. It needs to be passed by Congress.


The Supreme Court set itself above other branches in being the final arbiter of the law because the Constitution gave them jurisdiction to law and fact in those cases. Complaining about that is like saying "well the Legislative Branch sets itself above all other branches when it comes to impeaching the President". Or the President sets himself above all other branches

 

[SandSquid]

looks like you misquoted here.

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

[dblack]

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

looks like you misquoted here.

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

You're still misquoting. I didn't say any of these things. Please edit.

 

[SandSquid]

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

looks like you misquoted here.

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

You're still misquoting. I didn't say any of these things. Please edit.

My quote was repeating what the Constitution said sorry it put my response at the top of yours. Was using my phone and it messed it up. My bad.

 

[norwegen]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own nuclear bombs.

The 4th Amendment prohibits road blocks designed to catch drunk drivers.

The 5th Amendment allows people to ignore questions from cops.

Americans aren't the same in 2019 as they were in 1789. There were no nuclear bombs to consider. There were no intoxicated persons driving 2000 lb. hunks of metal at 60mph. There were no police officers. (Maybe a sheriff or two but not a police force like we know today) I think all Americans agree that you shouldn't own nuclear weapons, cops should capture drunk drivers and people should answer cops questions. However, aren't the Bill of Rights written in stone so to speak? They can't ever be removed? or can they? Most Americans in 2019 disagree with the objective if the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide a link to anyone other than a fringe kook who thinks individuals should have nuclear bombs.

I should have one. My neighbors are way too freaking nosy.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional.

.

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses. So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy

What you just said makes NO sense in this context.

Appellate review means the United States Supreme Court is to review the law and be the final arbiter. of what the law is. That does not mean that once they listen to the arguments of 9th and 11 th Circuit Courts of Appeal, who may have opposite rulings, then the United States Supreme Court rules, they can't come back and then RE-INTREPRET their own decision. They are co - equals with other branches of the government.

It is the job of the legislature (the legislative branch) to make new laws. Today, when the United States Supreme Court reverses its own decisions, it is called legislating from the bench.

As to the special situations, that does not include the normal day to day ruling of what a particular statute means.

Can the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment ever be changed without creating a new government?

what the United States Supreme Court did was to set itself above the other branches of government, declaring itself the final arbiter of what the law is. That was unconstitutional.

.

Well article 3 sec 2 of the Constitution does say in all other cases (after talking about special situations with ambassadors and consuls) the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction to both law and fact.

And yes that power of Judicial review came from a case presided over by the founding fathers (Washington and Adams) judges confirmed by the 1st-3rd congresses. So to say that wasn't the intent of the founding fathers is tough to buy

What you just said makes NO sense in this context.

Appellate review means the United States Supreme Court is to review the law and be the final arbiter. of what the law is. That does not mean that once they listen to the arguments of 9th and 11 th Circuit Courts of Appeal, who may have opposite rulings, then the United States Supreme Court rules, they can't come back and then RE-INTREPRET their own decision. They are co - equals with other branches of the government.

It is the job of the legislature (the legislative branch) to make new laws. Today, when the United States Supreme Court reverses its own decisions, it is called legislating from the bench.

As to the special situations, that does not include the normal day to day ruling of what a particular statute means.

What you are talking about is horizontal stare decisis. Many states have passed laws that it must be followed. You are making the claim that it is federally enforced. Can you show me the Constitutional or federal law for that where the Constitution or legislative branch passed a law to enforce stare decisis at the Supreme Court level? Or are you just making it up? Like the Constitution says, Supreme Court powers are held back by "Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congressional regulation enforcing stare decisis? Or are you making that up?

I agree I would like the SC to follow stare decisis. but that needs to come from Congress, just like it does in many states who have passed laws to enforce that. I would also like changes to the lobbying system used in politics, and term limits for Congress. But me wanting that doesn't mean it's Unconstitutional. It needs to be passed by Congress.


The Supreme Court set itself above other branches in being the final arbiter of the law because the Constitution gave them jurisdiction to law and fact in those cases. Complaining about that is like saying "well the Legislative Branch sets itself above all other branches when it comes to impeaching the President". Or the President sets himself above all other branches

Yes, in Marbury v. Madison the high Court did proclaim itself to be the final arbiter of what the law is. OTOH, the Court DID NOT get that authority from the Constitution.

George Washington warned against this practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1796

When the United States Supreme Court settles a law and creates the precedent, if they can then come back and reverse settled law, there would be no way in Hell to obey the law since the high Court could say that you have an individual Right today and tomorrow they rule 180 degrees opposite. This gets really murky when you have a dumb ass of a president willing to issue Executive Orders that violate the ex post facto prohibition on laws.

Also see this:

Legislating from the Bench | Harvard Political Review

The founders made it plain that there were God given, inherent unalienable, natural, absolute Rights that government could never impose on. The government still does it, but it is your Right, duty and obligation to ignore such laws. The Second Amendment exists for a reason.