A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

[SavannahMann]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

I don't buy the "majority" claim, but never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry, and however many illegal "guests" responded to that poll.

 

[DGS49]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

 

[Disir]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Do you happen to have a list of the questions that were asked?

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

And what does the Constitution "mean" in modern times? Whatever the Supreme Court decide it means?

Better would be that Congress is representative of the people, and the Supreme Court is made up of justices with honor, and not ones who gained the eye of politicians.

 

[BluesLegend]

LMAO "a majority" you say lol the capacity for liberals to make shit up and lie is off the charts. Here I will translate the liberals real message, the people refuse to agree with the left, they lost the election, so the law and constitution must be changed.

 

[miketx]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

Total nonsense. The framers intended the people would always be armed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The evil obama never realized that the government should leave the people alone as much as possible. He saw the government as a hand in hand shadow for every individual.

 

[BluesLegend]

You got to love the 2nd amendment, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that's anchored in freaking granite.

 

[OldLady]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

I don't buy the "majority" claim, but never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry, and however many illegal "guests" responded to that poll.

never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry,
That's for sure. Look at who's President.

 

[BluesLegend]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

Total nonsense. The framers intended the people would always be armed.

And why? Because when the 2nd was written the norm was monarchies and dictators disarmed their citizens, terrorized and abused their own people who could not fight back as they were disarmed.

 

[BluesLegend]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

I don't buy the "majority" claim, but never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry, and however many illegal "guests" responded to that poll.

never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry,
That's for sure. Look at who's President.

President Trump is smart enough to become a multi billionaire, obliterate 16 GOP primary rivals, take on the entire Dem party and liberal media pretty much single handedly and whoop their ass. Come on OldLady is your argument really that a man who could accomplish that is a moron?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state

Secure, perhaps.

Free? In this time I would would beg to differ. Having a standing army and a government to command it does not guarantee a free state.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

I don't buy the "majority" claim, but never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry, and however many illegal "guests" responded to that poll.

never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry,
That's for sure. Look at who's President.

Look who might have been. Oy vey ...

 

[eagle1462010]

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government CAN DO TO you.

There........fixed it for you.

 

[2aguy]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Wrong.....you do not want the government to have the ability to set up what they can do to you....that leads to the mass graves.....which is why the Constitution is based on limiting the government and defining the Rights of the individual.

 

[BluesLegend]

Compare the oppressive England monarchy to the modern day liberal monarchy. The liberal elite are convinced they know better and the people should just fall in line and do whatever they say. They have corrupted government, the press, and education system. They break the law whenever it gets in their way. They impose crushing taxes without mercy to fund their regime. Anyone who gets out of line they attack with a fury. Human behavior has not changed.

 

[2aguy]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

And what does the Constitution "mean" in modern times? Whatever the Supreme Court decide it means?

Better would be that Congress is representative of the people, and the Supreme Court is made up of justices with honor, and not ones who gained the eye of politicians.

Wow, we agree. The Supreme Court should not have the power to decide what is and isn't Constitutional......5, unelected, politically appointed lawyers have no god like power to know truth.....we need to take back some of the power the Supreme Court has been exercising....

 

[percysunshine]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Well, I am sure the Pew Center wishes it could ammend the Constitution without going through the arduous task of getting 3/4ths of the States and a super majority of Congress to agree with them.

Maybe they will win the Powerball Lotto....