Our genius Founders were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers? But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!
The 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights and reduced them to mere privileges that government can dole out at their discretion. In other words, as "rights" go, they are no longer rights, but limited privileges.
not according to the text of it,,
nowhere does it say any other amendments are repealed, which is whats needed for youre scenario,,,
The Amendment does not have to include specific wording. Through technical court decisions that you would not understand, the
United States Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment in a manner wherein it repealed the Bill of Rights.
thay gave an opinion that can be corrected later,,,
the only way to repeal a right is to directly repeal it not dance around it,,,
I stand in protest,,,
The United States Supreme Court
interprets the law. When you read what they write about ANY case, they do issue an "
Opinion." The majority makes a decision and the high Court starts out with a synopsis of the case and how they arrive at their
final decision. That final decision is called the
HOLDING. Many times the decision will read
"HELD" and then they issue their interpretation which IS THE LAW. That ruling (
holding) applies to every city, county, state, and federal district in the United States. It's not an "
opinion," but the law. Since you want to belabor the point, let me educate you. I'll do this one for free. Let us take the Second Amendment and follow it through legal process:
“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
According to Wikipedia:
"
The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealthin 1822. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"
The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“
The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is
absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an
unalienable Right.
When it came to so - called "
assault weapons," the high Court was even more generous to the people in the Miller ruling. The high Court ruled against Miller over a shotgun because it was not a weapon normally associated with the militia. Of course, they were wrong as shotguns were being used in the militia and our armed forces employ shotguns today. But, Miller died before his case could be fully litigated from his side. But.... today we get a different story. WHY?
Did the high Court just issue new "
opinions" and change the law or did something significant happen? Actually, the United States Supreme Court is generally bound by legal precedent and they are
NOT empowered to reinterpret the law, but they occasionally do because nobody points out they don't have the authority to do it. In this instance, what they did was to circumvent the Second Amendment in the Heller ruling. Let's see what they said:
“
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)
That holding contradicted
EVERYTHING from the framers intent about the Second Amendment to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. HOW did they justify the change? In a couple of years after Heller, we got our answer from the United States Supreme Court:
"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a
landmark[1] decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the
Second Amendment, is
incorporated by either the
Due Process Clause or
Privileges or Immunities Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment..." (emphasis mine, of course.)
So, let's think about this for a moment. In the Declaration of Independence, it says:
"
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
So, we began, as a nation with
unalienable Rights that were ruled to be absolute, inherent, natural, above the law, and irrevocable. The government said they did not grant the Rights and all of a sudden we have gun control,
not based upon a Second Amendment Right, but on the 14th Amendment. Now, let me see here. The 14th Amendment states:
"
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " (Emphasis mine again.)
Notice that the 14th Amendment does
NOT limit government
NOR does it guarantee ANY RIGHT. It guarantees you the
equal protection of the laws. It is the government, NOT your Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence.) The second thing the courts did was to eliminate the word
unalienable from the legal lexicon. The word unalienable is no longer used AND it was removed from Blacks Law Dictionary, which is the most authoritative legal dictionary accepted in the legal community. The government replaced that word with a synonym AND they redefined the synonym. That synonym is the word
inalienable. Now, watch very carefully what the courts do when they legally define the word
inalienable:
“
Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)
You cannot consent to give up an
unalienable Right. That was the whole purpose of this long winded lesson. But, you CAN consent to give up
inalienable rights. The main difference is that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you
unalienable Rights. On the other hand, the GOVERNMENT GIVE YOU "INALIENABLE" RIGHTS. So, the government can give, take away, have you surrender or transfer
inalienable rights, but since the government did not give you
unalienable Rights, they cannot. It's as simple as that. Now, let me do your work for you and then tear it down so we do this once.
Dictionaries will tell you
inalienable and
unalienable are the same thing. Layman dictionaries are not admissible in a court of law as evidence when you have a court ruling interpreting a word or phrase. So, it don't matter what they say. If MacDonald had a Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms, there would have no need to mention the 14th Amendment. It was supposed to give blacks the right to vote. Correct? No, it did not. The 14th Amendment took away God given Rights and exchanged them for government immunities and privileges (government granted "
rights.") And there went your Bill of Rights - court rulings provided to prove it. Consider that lesson a public service from someone who spent a career on it.
