No Amendment is Absolute

[protectionist]

With the right amount of votes any amendment can be changed, so no, amendments are not absolute they can be altered. Just like slavery was altered in the Constitution.

Slavery was not part of the Constitution, therefore the banning of it was not an alteration of the Constitution.

 

[protectionist]

President Biden is correct about no right being ‘absolute’:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Because no right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the exercising of those rights, provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

When government acts in accordance with the Constitution, it is not ‘clamping down’ on citizens’ rights – such a notion is both ignorant and wrong.

When government acts in a manner the people believe violates their rights, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts to have acts of government repugnant to the Constitution invalidated.

All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the people as represented by the government they elected.

The 2nd amendment says that Americans can keep and can bear arms. This means that some kind of arms (guns) can be owned and kept in their homes - although the amendment doesn't specify it, it could also mean the right to own and have guns outside the home as well.

Yes, this right IS ABSOLUTE. Biden is wrong, and he is talking stupid and recklessly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When Biden says “no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” is he or isn’t he just talking about the Second Amendment?

Just a few:
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We've certainly have seen them clamp down on these.

Right to keep and bear arms. this is the one he's after. Yet he's opening the door for all amendments.

Abolishes slavery, wonder how many of those illegals coming in would agree in six months.

Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex. Sorry ladies, your right may be in jeopardy.

Biden on the Second Amendment: 'No amendment is absolute'

I see clayton disliked your thread. Jo sounds like any dictator that believes he controls everything and takes what he wants. I was these antirights fascists I would be very concerned. What right would Jo go after next if he gets his way?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Right to keep and bear arms. this is the one he's after. Yet he's opening the door for all amendments.

This is a lie.

None of the proposed firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment.

President Biden is correct about no right being ‘absolute’:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Because no right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the exercising of those rights, provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

When government acts in accordance with the Constitution, it is not ‘clamping down’ on citizens’ rights – such a notion is both ignorant and wrong.

When government acts in a manner the people believe violates their rights, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts to have acts of government repugnant to the Constitution invalidated.

All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the people as represented by the government they elected.

So the 13th amendment is not absolute?
The 19th amendment is not absolute?
How about the 26th amendment
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened."
I guess the 25th amendment is not absolute?

if the 20th amendment isn't absolute maybe congress should have made trump president forever
My book the 16th amendment is not absolute

 

[bigrebnc1775]

President Biden is correct about no right being ‘absolute’:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Because no right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the exercising of those rights, provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

When government acts in accordance with the Constitution, it is not ‘clamping down’ on citizens’ rights – such a notion is both ignorant and wrong.

When government acts in a manner the people believe violates their rights, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts to have acts of government repugnant to the Constitution invalidated.

All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the people as represented by the government they elected.

The 2nd amendment says that Americans can keep and can bear arms. This means that some kind of arms (guns) can be owned and kept in their homes - although the amendment doesn't specify it, it could also mean the right to own and have guns outside the home as well.

Yes, this right IS ABSOLUTE. Biden is wrong, and he is talking stupid and recklessly.

Not only owned and kept in the home but also carried on the person

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

None of the proposed firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment.

You and I must have differing understandings of the word "infringe."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Right to keep and bear arms. this is the one he's after. Yet he's opening the door for all amendments.

This is a lie.

None of the proposed firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment.

President Biden is correct about no right being ‘absolute’:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Because no right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the exercising of those rights, provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

When government acts in accordance with the Constitution, it is not ‘clamping down’ on citizens’ rights – such a notion is both ignorant and wrong.

When government acts in a manner the people believe violates their rights, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts to have acts of government repugnant to the Constitution invalidated.

All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the people as represented by the government they elected.

So the 13th amendment is not absolute?
The 19th amendment is not absolute?
How about the 26th amendment
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened."
I guess the 25th amendment is not absolute?

if the 20th amendment isn't absolute maybe congress should have made trump president forever
My book the 16th amendment is not absolute

Yes, I agree that we should make CERTAIN that the 16th Amendment is FAR from absolute.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

How can we work to seriously fuck up Federal Income Taxation by killing any absolutism in the 16th? Let's get working on it and FUCK the FedGov into bankruptcy. Thanks, Joe.

 

[Resnic]

What he really meant was "no amendment is absolute if it stands in the way of my political career".

 

[NightFox]

When Biden says “no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” is he or isn’t he just talking about the Second Amendment?

Just a few:
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We've certainly have seen them clamp down on these.

Right to keep and bear arms. this is the one he's after. Yet he's opening the door for all amendments.

Abolishes slavery, wonder how many of those illegals coming in would agree in six months.

Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex. Sorry ladies, your right may be in jeopardy.

Biden on the Second Amendment: 'No amendment is absolute'

He’s right, Amendments mean whatever the 9 unelected, black robed dictators on SCOTUS say they mean, judicial review means that the entire Constitution is written in pencil not in ink.

Fortunately for us, we currently have a fairly strict constructionist court otherwise we’d be in real trouble right now but that’s subject to change.

 

[NightFox]

Right to keep and bear arms. this is the one he's after. Yet he's opening the door for all amendments.

This is a lie.

None of the proposed firearm regulations violate the Second Amendment.

President Biden is correct about no right being ‘absolute’:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Because no right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the exercising of those rights, provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.

When government acts in accordance with the Constitution, it is not ‘clamping down’ on citizens’ rights – such a notion is both ignorant and wrong.

When government acts in a manner the people believe violates their rights, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts to have acts of government repugnant to the Constitution invalidated.

All acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the people as represented by the government they elected.

So the 13th amendment is not absolute?
The 19th amendment is not absolute?
How about the 26th amendment
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened."
I guess the 25th amendment is not absolute?

if the 20th amendment isn't absolute maybe congress should have made trump president forever
My book the 16th amendment is not absolute

Yes, I agree that we should make CERTAIN that the 16th Amendment is FAR from absolute.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

How can we work to seriously fuck up Federal Income Taxation by killing any absolutism in the 16th? Let's get working on it and FUCK the FedGov into bankruptcy. Thanks, Joe.

Good points, but, our boys & girls in Washington have an unblemished track record of making the 16th MORE pervasive, not less.

Next step, taxing you on income that they think you're going to be making in the future (you pay UP FRONT of course) and I'm only half-joking because such ideas have already been kicked around for investment income.