Would You Approve The REPEAL of The 2nd Amendment By Executive Order?

Would You Approve The REPEAL of The 2nd Amendment By Executive Order?

  • YES

  • NO


Results are only viewable after voting.
Of course, I voted NO. The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,
Wrong.

The courts determine what the Constitution means ā€“ ultimately the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.
You have a serious comprehension problem. The intentions of the framers were very clear about an individuals right to bear arms in both the Constitution and subsequent writings.

ā€œThe laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimesā€¦. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.ā€
ā€“ Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Actually, you have an ignorance of the law problem.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Supremacy Clause means that the Constitution is the law of the land, that the courts determine what the Constitution means, and that the states and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution and rulings of the courts.

The Supremacy Clause codifies the interpretive authority of the courts, that those rulings are binding precedent, and that the Supreme Court makes the final decision as to the Constitutionā€™s meaning.

Consequently, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

ā€œBut thatā€™s not in the Constitutionā€ is a failed and ignorant ā€˜argument.ā€™

When the Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ā€˜unlimited,ā€™ that government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on firearms, the force and authority of that decision is the same as when the Amendment was ratified.
Shal not be infringed its as simple as that. When Trump puts a couple more Conservatives on the Court and they follow the Constitution I bet you will change you fucking tune.
 
Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
It can be found here:
Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.
As determined by the courts.
that is a progressive view of the 2nd amendment as I have ever read


what youre saying is the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can regulate how when and where we are allowed guns,,,

sorry thats just wrong

you are entitled to your opinion just dont claim to be an original intent supporter of the 2nd amendment
lol

Didnā€™t think anyone would refer to Scalia as ā€˜progressive.ā€™

Iā€™m not ā€˜sayingā€™ anything.

Iā€™m simply citing Heller/McDonald ā€“ current Second Amendment jurisprudence, the only opinion that matters or counts.

If you donā€™t like it or agree with it dig up Scalia an argue with him about it.



sadly clayton you have been brainwashed with the progressive idea that SCOTUS can make law, or that the 2nd amendment is even a law

the 2nd is a right that cant be taken, and infringement is just that, there are no different levels of it

as for case law, well thats the progressive influence on the courts that has slowly destroyed this country,

again if I take it as you say that would mean the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can at anytime take it away ,,,

I CALL BULLSHT!!!
 
Nope. A President can't remove a Constitutional Amendment with an EO. I shudder to think of what wreckage would become of the Constitution if they could.

Come back when you have support in both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures ready to back it up. Then we'll talk.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top