Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Along with the Fifth and 14th Amendments.Both the 4th and 9th amendments to the Constitution cover this.
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.
When it is amended to remove the 2nd, let us know."The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution".
Who do you think wrote the constitution?
Why do you think it was amended 27 times?
^^^Then I assume you advocate for research and programs to stem the horrific tide of infant mortality. As you certainly know the United States is a world leader, more children die within the first year of birth here than nearly any country.
And yet, you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.It is neither the role nor responsibility of the state to dictate to citizens when life begins, or to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.
Fallacy: non sequiturConservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.
If the states should have the right to ban abortion, then they should likewise have the right to ban certain firearms.
^^^^^The Texas anti-privacy rights measure is still in place because the Supreme Court is dominated by authoritarian rightwing ideologues who have nothing but contempt for the right to privacy and settled, accepted precedent.
When it is amended to remove the 2nd, let us know.
His point, which you apparently do not understand, is the enumerated rights do not depend on the constitution for their existence.
Why do you disagree?
Truth. They believe rights and freedoms are granted by the state.They just can't comprehend how the right can exist without being granted or established by he 2nd Amendment.
Truth. They believe rights and freedoms are granted by the state.
That's a kwanzaa argument, that in order to be oppose the the cold-blooded murder of human beings, that I must consider myself obligated to agree with whatever pollical agenda you want to claim for the benefit of human beings.
No!I'll gladly lump all serious criminal in with that. As far as I am concerned, there is some line of criminality, some point of being willing to unjustifiably cause harm and loss to human beings, where one forfeits one's own humanity.
No!
In Canada and Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are treated humanely.
Canada and Scandinavia have lower recidivism rate then USA.And that's why more are being created.
Canada and Scandinavia have lower recidivism rate then USA.
^^^
This is a lie - out of the 193 countries listed here, the US ranks #47.
Another Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence school "gradiate"?As much as it has tried to usurp this power, and as much as much of this usurpation has been allowed to stand, the Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution. It cannot add to the Constitution, what is not written therein, and it cannot remove from the Constitution what is written therein. Only by the Amendment process, can the Constitution legitimately be altered.
WTF?Most of the rights explicitly named in the Bill of Rights were held by its authors to be inherent God-given rights, to which we are all entitled, regardless of what is or is not written in the Constitution or in any other law;
Huh?that the Bill of Rights did not exist to grant these rights, but to acknowledge and protect them.
It's beyond evident, you don't.You don't understand how any of this stuff works.
Being a Trump U. grad, you think you do.As a programmed statist, your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution.
So.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.
So.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.
YES, they can.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.
WTF?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:
So."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)
You're the one who got suckered into taking the Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence course.
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.
Wasn't referring to amending anything.When it is amended to remove the 2nd, let us know.
My point which you and Abatis do not understand.His point, which you apparently do not understand, is the enumerated rights do not depend on the constitution for their existence.
Some nut-job.Why do you disagree?
More and more violent crimes are happening every year. In fact gun violence throughout Europe is exploding.
Why?
