I was thinking the same about your claim.
Post 336.
"If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution".
You're FOS.
You don't understand how any of this stuff works.
As a programmed statist, your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution.
The founders / framers of the USA embraced and based their governmental model on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. The entire establishment of the US government and every action it takes is bound by this principle; the people empower government by surrendering certain specific powers in a limited, delegated fashion.
This established the principle that government cannot
legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of those limited powers the members of the society gives up to the legislative assembly.
Under these principles, government only keeps that power with the consent of the governed and the citizens retained everything not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be inherent and among those rights a subset, called un/inalienable rights, were considered of such intrinsic value to being human that a person, even willingly, cannot confer them
.
The government is contractually bound to treat our rights as inherent, existing before the Constitution, imbued in us simply by our capability of reason and the Supreme Court has never wavered in upholding / enforcing that principle, from our very beginning and including the decision you liberty hating leftist love to hate:
"The right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Vanhorne's Lesse v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
_____________________
"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
_____________________
"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." -- United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
_____________________
"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” -- DC v. Heller, 478 F. 3d 370, (2008)
This principle, this inviolate rule for the operation of our government, does not in any manner depend on your ignorant leftist beliefs . . .
ALWAYS remember, Marx was not a founding father, your collectivist beliefs have no import on operation of the US Constitution.
.
