The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that anyone thought otherwise. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton responded:
I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.
While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.
This language clearly shows the difference between liberal and conservative approaches to govt
1. by conservative and Constitutionalist beliefs in limited govt
PEOPLE have rights by NATURE, and we agree what RESPONSIBILITIES to give to govt by the Constitution
Not the other way!
2. liberals keep teaching that govt has all the power to establish rights and will of the people
and then dictate it from the top down. All you have to do is 'get elected' and you can mandate at will by executive order.
All you have to do is get enough people to vote by 'majority rule' and you get to overrule the equal protection of other people's interests, consent or beliefs.
If you don't agree with a law or vote, all you have to do is get a judge to rule in your favor and 'that creates law from the bench by precedent'
You might as well have two different creeds or denominations fighting to establish their religious beliefs as precedent through govt.
Where is the separation of church and state, and protection from discrimination by creed, when it comes to Political Beliefs?
You have it backwards. If a law is passed which violates the Constitution, it is the obligation of the Courts to overturn it.
For example, laws which refuse gays the right to marry. Such laws violate the rights of consenting adults. It's not a question of overturning laws we don't like.
As an aside, I find it quite amusing that gun lovers are so quick to scream about THEIR Constitutional rights being violated, every time any gun control measures are proposed, however practical or sensible. Yet these self-same people want all sorts of regulations and restrictions put on women who try to obtain a legal abortion.
Maybe you should force those wanting to buy guns to look at pictures of children who have been shot in school shootings, or those who've been accidentally shot, before they can buy a gun. They should be forced to look at all of the gun death figures for the US and wait three days to properly consider the consequence of their actions. Just like women wanting an abortion.
The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that anyone thought otherwise. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton responded:
I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.
While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.
This language clearly shows the difference between liberal and conservative approaches to govt
1. by conservative and Constitutionalist beliefs in limited govt
PEOPLE have rights by NATURE, and we agree what RESPONSIBILITIES to give to govt by the Constitution
Not the other way!
2. liberals keep teaching that govt has all the power to establish rights and will of the people
and then dictate it from the top down. All you have to do is 'get elected' and you can mandate at will by executive order.
All you have to do is get enough people to vote by 'majority rule' and you get to overrule the equal protection of other people's interests, consent or beliefs.
If you don't agree with a law or vote, all you have to do is get a judge to rule in your favor and 'that creates law from the bench by precedent'
You might as well have two different creeds or denominations fighting to establish their religious beliefs as precedent through govt.
Where is the separation of church and state, and protection from discrimination by creed, when it comes to Political Beliefs?
You have it backwards. If a law is passed which violates the Constitution, it is the obligation of the Courts to overturn it.
For example, laws which refuse gays the right to marry. Such laws violate the rights of consenting adults. It's not a question of overturning laws we don't like.
As an aside, I find it quite amusing that gun lovers are so quick to scream about THEIR Constitutional rights being violated, every time any gun control measures are proposed, however practical or sensible. Yet these self-same people want all sorts of regulations and restrictions put on women who try to obtain a legal abortion.
Maybe you should force those wanting to buy guns to look at pictures of children who have been shot in school shootings, or those who've been accidentally shot, before they can buy a gun. They should be forced to look at all of the gun death figures for the US and wait three days to properly consider the consequence of their actions. Just like women wanting an abortion.
Hi
Dragonlady there4eyeM Hutch Starskey
If you read my other messages YES I agree and have stated so
that Courts are supposed to REJECT laws that are unconstitutional.
But NOT go too far by ESTABLISHING law, there is a DIFFERENCE.
For example, where DOMA went too far and was unconstitutional by discriminating and excluding
same sex beliefs, it is EQUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL to ESTABLISH gay marriage or "belief IN marriage equality" through the Courts and Govt as it is to establish BELIEFS AGAINST gay marriage and equality.
Issues of BELIEFS, where BOTH sides have their own creeds, BOTH need to be rejected as private matters.
NOT endorsing one side and excluding or penalizing the other.
Do ANY of you get that this is a TWO WAY rule:
First Amendment - govt can neither ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT beliefs
Fourteenth Amendment - equal protection of laws and no discrimination by creed, where BOTH
sides of the marriage debate and BOTH SIDES of the abortion debate are POLITICAL BELIEFS
Both sides have to be treated equally, not favoring one set of beliefs and penalizing the other.
Both have to be included in consensual decisions that accommodate both.
so
1. the laws cannot touch on private beliefs or creeds that vary per individual or group
but the govt must remain neutral and equally inclusive or else leave the entire matter to individuals
or states to decide by that same criteria of equal protection from discrimination by the other creeds
2. people have to take responsibility for their own beliefs, the consequences and costs, and
cannot abuse govt to make a law that imposes costs or consequences of "other people's beliefs"
on people in ways we don't agree to
3. the laws rulings or policies have to be made through the proper channels and process Constitutionally ie not abusing the executive office or judiciary to make policies that belong to the legislatures.
NOTE: there is a FINE LINE between just "ruling on a law as Constitutional" vs. ENDORSING and ESTABLISHING a law biased by political or religious beliefs favoring one creed and penalizing another.
On the marriage issue, the Libertarians who say to get marriage out of govt and govt out of marriage
are probably the most consistent in treating ALL beliefs about marriage equally as PRIVATE and not public.
Dragonlady you give a good example, that pro gun control people don't want all the consequences of gun violence without more accountability by gun rights activists who oppose regulations and the same with abortion rights, where prolife people don't want to endorse or pay for any aftermath to do with abortion if they never agreed to that in the first place. Both sides of these issues don't want to be made responsible for the other side's beliefs, so why not focus on where they AGREE will solve the problems instead of fighting.
The courts go too far when they take sides on issues with beliefs at stake, so one is going to get discriminated against compared with the other. That's what wrong with the recent issues on marriage equality and now transgender orientation is beliefs are involved on both sides, and neither side is proven or disproven,
but both positions for or against remain FAITH BASED and govt is NOT SUPPOSED TO DECIDE THESE!
