Would You Approve The REPEAL of The 2nd Amendment By Executive Order?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course, I voted NO. The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,

Wrong.

The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I voted YES but why did I vote YES?

I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.

If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.

We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.

You heard wrong about the 14th. The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.

Wrong.

The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.

The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.

The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.

Now, what was the 14th A about, again?

The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.

Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

You mean like the hypocrisy of the left who wants to read the 14th word for word yet ignore the phrase "shall not be infringed" when it comes to all sorts of laws infringing the 2nd?

No, the hypocrisy of the right when conservatives whine about “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” after the Supreme Court invalidates an un-Constitutional law conservatives support.

But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.

 

[Freiheit]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory. The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order. Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

There is only one constitutionally acceptable way of repealing an amendment to the US Constitution. And the chances of that are somewhere between very slim and none.

from: What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center
"Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states."

The link above will also help you understand what is required to repeal a constitutional amendment.

The Second Amendment isn’t going to be ‘repealed,’ of course – the notion is idiocy.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it will continue to evolve, new measures will be enacted, reviewed by the courts, some will be upheld, others invalidated, eventually the Supreme Court will weigh in.

In time we’ll have a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment – perhaps within the next 50 years – as to what regulatory measures the states may enact, what measures they may not.

 

[Karl Rand]

In time we’ll have a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment – perhaps within the next 50 years – as to what regulatory measures the states may enact, what measures they may not.

50 years? Putin will have induced the second civil war before then.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory. The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order. Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.

Trump is just as stupid – believing he can ‘repeal’ the Citizenship Cause of the 14th Amendment via EO.

 

[Karl Rand]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory. The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order. Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.

Trump is just as stupid – believing he can ‘repeal’ the Citizenship Cause of the 14th Amendment via EO.

We can only hope he continues with his arrogant stupidity. He’s providing the fuel for eventual impeachment.

 

[Pilot1]

Wrong.

The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.

The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. So, unfortunately for you, they agree with most Americans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You heard wrong about the 14th. The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.

Wrong.

The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.

The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.

The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.

Now, what was the 14th A about, again?

The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.

Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

You mean like the hypocrisy of the left who wants to read the 14th word for word yet ignore the phrase "shall not be infringed" when it comes to all sorts of laws infringing the 2nd?

No, the hypocrisy of the right when conservatives whine about “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” after the Supreme Court invalidates an un-Constitutional law conservatives support.

But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.

But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.

Exactly!
That's why you'd be okay with a state law infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
Or if a state passed a law allowing unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Pilot1]

But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.

Exactly!
That's why you'd be okay with a state law infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
Or if a state passed a law allowing unreasonable searches and seizures.

All the states, when they became states agreed to the terms of the Constitution. I am a huge state's right proponent. However, the states knew about the 2A going into it, and signed off on the Federal guarantee of non infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

IT IS NOT A STATE"S RIGHTS ISSUE. Read the Constitution. Is Free Speech a state's rights issue? Can your state curtail the First Amendment?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.

No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.

Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.

Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.

It can be found here:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Of course, I voted NO. The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,

Wrong.

The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.

You have a serious comprehension problem. The intentions of the framers were very clear about an individuals right to bear arms in both the Constitution and subsequent writings.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

 

[progressive hunter]

one problem with the question is that it cant be done by EO

 

[caddo kid]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory. The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order. Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.

Yes, Lincoln WAS terminally stupid, and he paid a big price for his stupidity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks

No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.

No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.

Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.

Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.

It can be found here:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.

As determined by the courts.

 

[progressive hunter]

No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.

No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.

Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.

Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.

It can be found here:

Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.

As determined by the courts.

that is a progressive view of the 2nd amendment as I have ever read


what youre saying is the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can regulate how when and where we are allowed guns,,,

sorry thats just wrong

you are entitled to your opinion just dont claim to be an original intent supporter of the 2nd amendment

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong.

The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.

The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.

The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.

Now, what was the 14th A about, again?

The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.

Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

You mean like the hypocrisy of the left who wants to read the 14th word for word yet ignore the phrase "shall not be infringed" when it comes to all sorts of laws infringing the 2nd?

No, the hypocrisy of the right when conservatives whine about “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” after the Supreme Court invalidates an un-Constitutional law conservatives support.

But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.

But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.

Exactly!
That's why you'd be okay with a state law infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
Or if a state passed a law allowing unreasonable searches and seizures.

Wrong.

I oppose any law enacted that violates the Constitution; regardless the ‘will of the people’; unlike inconsistent conservatives who whine about the ‘will of the people’ when the courts invalidate a law they support – such as a measure prohibiting same-sex marriage.

But when the people enact a law conservatives don’t like, they couldn’t care less about the ‘will of the people’ and seek to overturn the law in court.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong.

The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.

The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. So, unfortunately for you, they agree with most Americans.

You’re not paying attention – you’ve missed my posts where I cited Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment right as an individual right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course, I voted NO. The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,

Wrong.

The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.

You have a serious comprehension problem. The intentions of the framers were very clear about an individuals right to bear arms in both the Constitution and subsequent writings.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Actually, you have an ignorance of the law problem.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Supremacy Clause means that the Constitution is the law of the land, that the courts determine what the Constitution means, and that the states and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution and rulings of the courts.

The Supremacy Clause codifies the interpretive authority of the courts, that those rulings are binding precedent, and that the Supreme Court makes the final decision as to the Constitution’s meaning.

Consequently, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

When the Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on firearms, the force and authority of that decision is the same as when the Amendment was ratified.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.

Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.

Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.

It can be found here:

Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.

As determined by the courts.

that is a progressive view of the 2nd amendment as I have ever read


what youre saying is the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can regulate how when and where we are allowed guns,,,

sorry thats just wrong

you are entitled to your opinion just dont claim to be an original intent supporter of the 2nd amendment

lol

Didn’t think anyone would refer to Scalia as ‘progressive.’

I’m not ‘saying’ anything.

I’m simply citing Heller/McDonald – current Second Amendment jurisprudence, the only opinion that matters or counts.

If you don’t like it or agree with it dig up Scalia an argue with him about it.