Constitutional Amendments are no longer absolute?

[struth]

View attachment 478719

Thoughts?

They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.[/ATTACH]

What part of "without due process of law" didn't you understand? The 5th Amendment specifically allows for that.

There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants

What the **** is that supposed to mean?

The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.

No duh, exactly as stated in the 5th Amendment.

It means there are numerous exemptions to the search warrant requirement...that not all rights are absolute

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 478719

Thoughts?

They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.[/ATTACH]

What part of "without due process of law" didn't you understand? The 5th Amendment specifically allows for that.

There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants

What the **** is that supposed to mean?

The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.

No duh, exactly as stated in the 5th Amendment.

It means there are numerous exemptions to the search warrant requirement...that not all rights are absolute

What exemptions? All it means is that government ignores the Constitution.

 

[struth]

View attachment 478719

Thoughts?

They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.[/ATTACH]

What part of "without due process of law" didn't you understand? The 5th Amendment specifically allows for that.

There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants

What the **** is that supposed to mean?

The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.

No duh, exactly as stated in the 5th Amendment.

It means there are numerous exemptions to the search warrant requirement...that not all rights are absolute

What exemptions? All it means is that government ignores the Constitution.

The Terry Stop, upheld in Terry v Ohio

Vehicular searches, the Open Fields doctrine....but here is a list of a few more, that don't require a search warrant...https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/valid-searches-and-seizures-without-warrants

 

[Concerned American]

View attachment 478719

Thoughts?

They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.

There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants

The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.

This means states can change their voting ages to 25, yes?

Not since the 26th amendment in 1971.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If it was all clear and concise, then we'd have no need to Courts....

Or attorneys

 

[schmidlap]

The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited.

Your antic definition of government necessarily negates government.

Universal self-indulgence is hardly the hallmark of any advanced society.

What?

The Constitution is written to negate universal self-indulgence.

The process to amend the Constitution is deliberately difficult. Fads, whims, and Marxist/Socialist/Communist mentalities are flash in the pan concepts that are harmful and the Founding Fathers set forth to make it exceedingly hard for these kinds of 'societal' changes to happen.

Slow and deliberate is the correct path.

History shows us that governments are harmful and universally corrupt. That is why individual rights are supreme and exceed the power of government. This was the intentional condition of our country.

Universal self-indulgence was not the objective of the Founding Fathers, nor would it be possible since individual rights are necessarily circumscribed by the rights of others in this or any society.

Do some extremists attempt to arrogate individual freedoms to the State? Indeed. Women and their wombs are a perennial target. Freedom-loving folks must be vigilant in repelling such Statist usurpations.

 

[JusticeHammer]

It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.

Lying pos. The constitution was written to limit government. A lib has no idea what the constitution says. Retarded fool.

 

[Concerned American]

If it was all clear and concise, then we'd have no need to Courts....

Or attorneys

Just watching the whack job takes on some of the issues here pretty much demonstrates the need for courts and attorneys. You could prove to some of these idiots that the grass is green and why and they would still argue that is purple because that's the way they feel it should be.

 

[StormAl]

Who believes that any amendment is absolute?

 

[konradv]

View attachment 478719

Thoughts?

They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.

There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants

The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.

This means states can change their voting ages to 25, yes?

No, a State law can't override the US Constitution, which sets the age at 18.

How can you help but override amendments that aren't absolute?

I am not sure what you are asking

If an amendment doesn't mean anything concrete, then how does a state know its overriding it? Everyone can have their own interpretation.

No, everyone can have the USSC's interpretation.

 

[konradv]

It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.

Sorry, NAZI, but the Bill of Rights is the law, not a guideline. The government has no authority to place such limits. In fact the BOR was created specifically to tell the government what it cannot do. What restriction comports with "shall not be abridged?"

Depends if you're talking the people or an individual, in which case: no, yes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

How does infringing a right that is explicitly affirmed and identified as belonging to the people, comport with “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”?

 

[MadChemist]

It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.

The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.

Where did you find your misinformation?

The federalist's papers.

Where did you find yours?

Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.

You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.

How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?

 

[BluesLegend]

View attachment 478719

Thoughts?

That's what members of congress do, they cheat on their taxes constantly.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's what members of congress do, they cheat on their taxes constantly.

More to the point, they have the power to cheat on everyone's taxes. It's not about what taxes actual members of Congress do or do not pay; it's about how much they steal from us in taxes.

 

[Camp]

It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.

The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.

Where did you find your misinformation?

The federalist's papers.

Where did you find yours?

Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.

You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.

How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?

Justices, especially Justice Scalia believe, or in Scalia's case believed, there were no absolutes in the Constitution. I believe they and he can be considered as experts.

 

[MadChemist]

It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.

The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.

Where did you find your misinformation?

The federalist's papers.

Where did you find yours?

Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.

You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.

How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?

Justices, especially Justice Scalia believe, or in Scalia's case believed, there were no absolutes in the Constitution. I believe they and he can be considered as experts.

So you really don't read questions.

You just say what you need to.

Or do you believe Scalia was associated with the Federalist Papers.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.

Sorry, NAZI, but the Bill of Rights is the law, not a guideline. The government has no authority to place such limits. In fact the BOR was created specifically to tell the government what it cannot do. What restriction comports with "shall not be abridged?"

Depends if you're talking the people or an individual, in which case: no, yes.

Could you translate that into English?

 

[bripat9643]

It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.

No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.

The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.

Where did you find your misinformation?

The federalist's papers.

Where did you find yours?

Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.

You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.

How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?

Justices, especially Justice Scalia believe, or in Scalia's case believed, there were no absolutes in the Constitution. I believe they and he can be considered as experts.

They are all political hacks. They didn't get appointed for speaking the truth.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 478719

Thoughts?

They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.

There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants

The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.

This means states can change their voting ages to 25, yes?

No, a State law can't override the US Constitution, which sets the age at 18.

How can you help but override amendments that aren't absolute?

I am not sure what you are asking

If an amendment doesn't mean anything concrete, then how does a state know its overriding it? Everyone can have their own interpretation.

No, everyone can have the USSC's interpretation.

So you believe the SC is infallible?