Biden says “No Amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

[bodecea]

Amendments can be amended.

Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.

 

[Rigby5]

Amendments can be amended.

Sure amendments can be amended, but the Bill of Rights was supposed to be sort of a sacred deal breaker if someone tries to violate such basic principles.

And we have. The 16th amendment in 1913 creating federal income tax, seems totally illegal and corrupt, to me.

{...
Taxes imposed by Parliament were one of the triggers that set off the American colonies' fight for independence ("No taxation without representation!"). So, the new nation's Constitution stated in the first draft that citizens should not be subject to direct taxation.1

Despite this, about 60 years later, the first income tax in the U.S. was levied to pay for the Civil War. When the conflict ended, this tax was repealed, but it gave the federal government a taste for the revenue that income taxes could raise. A new income tax was introduced in 1894, ostensibly to make up for lost revenues from reductions in U.S. tariffs.2 The public was not impressed. This tax was taken before the Supreme Court and was declared unconstitutional, in the case Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co.3

Understanding the 16th Amendment​

To counteract the defeat, the government drafted the 16th Amendment, which states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."6

The amendment was ratified in 1913, clearing the legal hurdles to an income tax. Unsurprisingly, an income tax was levied that very year.2 The legislation was again taken up in front of the Supreme Court. On January 24, 1916, the court ruled that income taxes were now legal—due to the constitutional changes.7
...}

Is Income Tax Constitutional?

The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."

www.investopedia.com

 

[Richard-H]

You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.

You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.

ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.

Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.

Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Amendments can be amended.

Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.

Bad argument.
The actually basis for rights not being absolute to any one individual, is ONLY due to the fact a compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.

For example, free speech most certainly IS absolute.
When you make laws against libel, slander, inciting violence, etc., you are NOT giving government arbitrary authority, but only balancing the rights of one person against others they may be illegally harming.
In no way does that diminish the rights of the person being restricted.
It is just recognizing the higher importance of those other rights being defended.

Religious freedom should be absolute.
Laws that dictate stores be closed on Sundays then are illegal for example.
When you correctly limit religious activity, like Old Testament believers who would stone adulterers, that does not infringe upon religious freedom because it is not dictating or restricting religious freedom, but simply putting the right to life of the potential victim higher.
Compromising and establishing priorities between rights of individuals is not illegal.
But government arbitrarily imposing its own values, like the war on drugs, is totally and completely illegal.

Rights are and must remain absolute, always.
Which is why it obviously is illegal to prevent convicted felons from voting, gun rights, etc., after their sentence is over.
Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated or vacated on the whim of legislators.
Legislators have no such authority, and there is no way for us to give them that authority.

 

[bendog]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's right. LOL

Scalia agrees with Kagan that Second Amendment rights are "not unlimited"

Matt Drudge highlighted a post by the website KaganWatch.com that stated that Elena Kagan wrote "the Second Amendment ... enjoys 'strong, but not unlimited protection' " -- apparently to suggest that Kagan was hostile to gun rights. In fact, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia...

www.mediamatters.org

 

[Richard-H]

Amendments can be amended.

Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.

Bad argument.
The actually basis for rights not being absolute to any one individual, is ONLY due to the fact a compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.

For example, free speech most certainly IS absolute.
When you make laws against libel, slander, inciting violence, etc., you are NOT giving government arbitrary authority, but only balancing the rights of one person against others they may be illegally harming.
In no way does that diminish the rights of the person being restricted.
It is just recognizing the higher importance of those other rights being defended.

Religious freedom should be absolute.
Laws that dictate stores be closed on Sundays then are illegal for example.
When you correctly limit religious activity, like Old Testament believers who would stone adulterers, that does not infringe upon religious freedom because it is not dictating or restricting religious freedom, but simply putting the right to life of the potential victim higher.
Compromising and establishing priorities between rights of individuals is not illegal.
But government arbitrarily imposing its own values, like the war on drugs, is totally and completely illegal.

Rights are and must remain absolute, always.
Which is why it obviously is illegal to prevent convicted felons from voting, gun rights, etc., after their sentence is over.
Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated or vacated on the whim of legislators.
Legislators have no such authority, and there is no way for us to give them that authority.

Bad Argument.

When you say "... compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.", you are effectively saying that rights are not absolute...defeating your own argument.

You also say:

"Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated....legislatures have no such authority"

Yet the legislatures of the confederate states violated the rights of hundreds of thousands of African Americans for many years.

Finally, according to your interpretation, I must have the religious freedom to have human sacrifices as long as those being sacrificed didn't object...and get a tax exemption to boot.

 

[Rigby5]

You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.

You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.

ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.

Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.

Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.

With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.

In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Amendments can be amended.

Also, they are not absolute. Free Speech is not absolute....Religious freedom is not absolute...just examples.

Bad argument.
The actually basis for rights not being absolute to any one individual, is ONLY due to the fact a compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.

For example, free speech most certainly IS absolute.
When you make laws against libel, slander, inciting violence, etc., you are NOT giving government arbitrary authority, but only balancing the rights of one person against others they may be illegally harming.
In no way does that diminish the rights of the person being restricted.
It is just recognizing the higher importance of those other rights being defended.

Religious freedom should be absolute.
Laws that dictate stores be closed on Sundays then are illegal for example.
When you correctly limit religious activity, like Old Testament believers who would stone adulterers, that does not infringe upon religious freedom because it is not dictating or restricting religious freedom, but simply putting the right to life of the potential victim higher.
Compromising and establishing priorities between rights of individuals is not illegal.
But government arbitrarily imposing its own values, like the war on drugs, is totally and completely illegal.

Rights are and must remain absolute, always.
Which is why it obviously is illegal to prevent convicted felons from voting, gun rights, etc., after their sentence is over.
Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated or vacated on the whim of legislators.
Legislators have no such authority, and there is no way for us to give them that authority.

Bad Argument.

When you say "... compromise becomes necessary when the rights of more than one individual come in conflict.", you are effectively saying that rights are not absolute...defeating your own argument.

You also say:

"Rights can not arbitrarily ever be violated....legislatures have no such authority"

Yet the legislatures of the confederate states violated the rights of hundreds of thousands of African Americans for many years.

Finally, according to your interpretation, I must have the religious freedom to have human sacrifices as long as those being sacrificed didn't object...and get a tax exemption to boot.

No, giving one right priority over another in a particular situation, does not at all diminish rights.
It is just like a traffic regulation saying to drive in the right lane.
That does not diminish your right to drive at all, but just makes it safer for everyone.

Sure the confederacy violated the rights of Blacks, but they claimed to be upholding the property rights of those that paid for those slaves. That is not without precedent, as historically slavery was a means of preventing convicted criminals and POWs from causing harm. It was how the penal system originally operated back when prisons did not yet exist.

And yes, I agree that human sacrifice should be legal with willing victims.
And we do effectively do that.
For example, those US GIs who died in Iraq or Afghanistan essentially were illegal religious sacrifices.
Their deaths were totally illegal, but there is no much of a way anyone could prevent it, given the insane beliefs of the participants in those illegal wars.

 

[Richard-H]

You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.

You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.

ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.

Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.

Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.

With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.

In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.

A very idealistic, but unrealistic view of rights.

In reality, once a person is born, the only right they have is the right to die.

All other rights are theoretical constructs agreed upon in some sort of social contract.

"We the people..." have agreed on the rights in the Constitution.

Americans in general have agreed upon the concept of "Inalienable Rights" as stated in the Declaration of Independence".

These are all social constructs... they do not really exist in nature.

Did the Jews in 1930s Germany have such rights?

We have rights because WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.

But mostly we tend to disagree that other people have rights!

 

[Rigby5]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's right. LOL

Scalia agrees with Kagan that Second Amendment rights are "not unlimited"

Matt Drudge highlighted a post by the website KaganWatch.com that stated that Elena Kagan wrote "the Second Amendment ... enjoys 'strong, but not unlimited protection' " -- apparently to suggest that Kagan was hostile to gun rights. In fact, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia...

www.mediamatters.org

The 2nd amendment is not a right but a restriction on the federal government.
When one right eclipses another, that does not diminish any right.
The actual right is better exposed by the 4th amendment, the right of self defense.

When you are entering a post office or courthouse, you don't need to be armed because you are supposed to be protected by the security at the post office or courthouse.

 

[Rigby5]

You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.

You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.

ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.

Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.

Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.

With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.

In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.

A very idealistic, but unrealistic view of rights.

In reality, once a person is born, the only right they have is the right to die.

All other rights are theoretical constructs agreed upon in some sort of social contract.

"We the people..." have agreed on the rights in the Constitution.

Americans in general have agreed upon the concept of "Inalienable Rights" as stated in the Declaration of Independence".

These are all social constructs... they do not really exist in nature.

Did the Jews in 1930s Germany have such rights?

We have rights because WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.

But mostly we tend to disagree that other people have rights!

Sure all rights are social constructs.
But that does not mean they are arbitrary.
They have evolved out of our understanding of the instincts in our DNA.
For example, if we were not social, herbivore, primates originally, and had evolved from canine predators, our sense of rights likely would be very different.
They are an understanding of what minimizes social friction and maximizes social freedom, within our primate hereditary instincts.
For example, how do we know we have a right to life?
Because if you try to take the life of anyone, they not only will strongly try to resist and cause you harm, but empathy will cause the taking of life to harm many others as well.

The Holocaust is a lot more complicated than that.
Did you know that it was Zionist traitors in Germany who caused them to lose WWI, that it was very unfair, that it was the Allies that were in the wrong, and that the Allies committed massive war crimes against Germany in order to win?
Zionists like Chaim Weizmann and David ben Gurion gave the Allies the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite explosive, and stole the Zimmerman letter to get the US into the war. In return the British gave the Zionists the Balfour Declaration, over a Palestine the British had no authority to give. The Germans did not start WWI, but the Russians assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and the French invaded Germany first. The means of making Germany surrender was the illegal embargo of civilian food, murdering millions of Germans through starvation, a war crime since 1906.

Science is what should be used to determine rights.
We often instead go by simple majority rule, but that is obviously foolish and wrong.
There is a scientific basis for rights that any anthropologist or philosopher can easily understand.
The problem is politicians and lawyers tend to be liars.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

NO, dumbshit

While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.

all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.

sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.

Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.

If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.

Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.

dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th

Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.

I shouldn't have had to clear it up it was quite clear what I wrote
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Joe Dufus stole the election, doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights and he wants to nuke Americans that don't agree with the filthy Democrat Party's agenda of making the US a Socialist shithole.

Why isn't the sonofabitch being impeached?

jo is intentionally fucking up so he will be forced to step down so harris can become the next president
Because she would have never been nominated hell the bitch never made it to the first primary.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

the only purpose for federal jurisdiction was to ensure Americans citizens rights were protected

 

[Rigby5]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

the only purpose for federal jurisdiction was to ensure Americans citizens rights were protected

Correct, but that comes from the 14th amendment, and did not allow for federal intervention until 1868.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.

what does shall not be infringed mean to you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO

if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.

Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.

well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated

No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.

well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?

Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.

the only purpose for federal jurisdiction was to ensure Americans citizens rights were protected

Correct, but that comes from the 14th amendment, and did not allow for federal intervention until 1868.

The founders debated about having a second amendment right in the U.S. Constitution because some argued the states already had firearms rights protected within the constitution of all the states but they went on and added it to the U.S. CONSTITUTION

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.

You're mixing up 'Inalienable Rights' as mentioned in the declaration of independence, and Constitutional rights.

ANY amendment to the Constitution can be amended by a new amendment. Many have been.

Article one of the Bill of rights was never ratified. Article two was only ratified in 1992.

Articles 3-12 were ratified in 1791. Those 'rights' apparently didn't exist before then.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right", and never can be.
There are a gazillion reasons for this.
First of all, rights have to exist first, before they could ever be made into law.
Otherwise no one would have the authority to make the legislation, like the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights clearly says it is not creating any rights, that rights can't be created, that they have to always exist, can not be taken away, and that they are infinite and innumerable.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create restrictions on the federal government, not to list rights.

With the link to the history of the Bill of Rights, you are confusing the wording with the theory.
For example, the fact slavery existed does not change the fact everyone always knew it was wrong.
Lots of people do things they know are wrong, like rob banks, cheat on taxes, lie about Iraqi WMD, the War on Drugs, federal firearm laws, etc.
So the Bill of Rights final wording was a compromise, not something idealized or perfect.
Everyone knew it was flawed, and the 14the amendment had to later try to fix it.

In summary, there has to be an over reaching concept of rights that justifies any legislation.
That is how the SCOTUS can decide legislation, including amendments, could be illegal.

A very idealistic, but unrealistic view of rights.

In reality, once a person is born, the only right they have is the right to die.

All other rights are theoretical constructs agreed upon in some sort of social contract.

"We the people..." have agreed on the rights in the Constitution.

Americans in general have agreed upon the concept of "Inalienable Rights" as stated in the Declaration of Independence".

These are all social constructs... they do not really exist in nature.

Did the Jews in 1930s Germany have such rights?

We have rights because WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE RIGHTS.

But mostly we tend to disagree that other people have rights!

you need to educate yourself on the founders reasons. They found the rights self evident and pre-existing, and they could not be removed. That’s factual. You can disagree, but you can’t make things up

 

[2aguy]

Well, this could get interesting...

Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday announced a slew of new gun control measures after a recent pair of high-profile mass shootings, and insisted the Second Amendment doesn&#821…

nypost.com

View attachment 478215

He's right. LOL

Scalia agrees with Kagan that Second Amendment rights are "not unlimited"

Matt Drudge highlighted a post by the website KaganWatch.com that stated that Elena Kagan wrote "the Second Amendment ... enjoys 'strong, but not unlimited protection' " -- apparently to suggest that Kagan was hostile to gun rights. In fact, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia...

www.mediamatters.org

You guys keep lying about Scalia.....as if the internet doesn't exist....

You use this statement by Scalia as giving you permission to ban absolutely every gun you want, as long as the 2nd Amendment remains written on paper somewhere.....

What did Scalia actually say in relation to this quote?

You guys don't want to go there.....because it shows you are morons....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.




https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Amendments can be amended.

do you even know what the bill of rights is, and how those 10 differ from others?

 

[Smokin' OP]

When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.

The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.

No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.

Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?

Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.

Really?

Words too bigly for you to comprehend?

It happens with the Trump cult.