2nd amendment can be altered like all the other amendments the Xtreme court has screwed with

[MightyMopar]

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burden its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer."
-- Thomas Jefferson

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Quotes-USconstitution.htm

[libdem4life]

1. So do we actually have to alter it to tax and register and ID guns and their owners?

and tax ammo and other items that support weaponry and make the entire industry complicated, expensive and legally accountable?

Those quotes made me proud, yet again, to be an American...large boots to fill, seems.

[jody]

2. Second does not grant a right, it requires government to protect a right. Either RKBA for

individual self-defense is an enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment or that right is protected as an unenumerated right by the Ninth Amendment.

[samsingh]

3. says nothing about costs and does mention militia.

[MightyMopar]

5. The 2nd and 9th amendments means whatever the Supreme Court says it does

We need to to work for new Supreme Court and a changing electorate will make that possible.

[X_Digger]

10. Is that a precedent you *really* want to set?

Do you want Roe v Wade overturned? How about Loving v Virginia? or Lawrence v Texas?

[MightyMopar]

15. Today's Supreme Court is just about whatever you can get away with. It's a clown car.

[gcomeau]

26. WHAT precedent???

Having the court rule on laws? Little late to be setting that precedent. Guess WHY making sure the GOP doesn't get to appoint a bunch of justices was a big part of why getting Obama re-elected was so important? Because if they did Roe was going down first chance they got and everyone knows it, what planet do you live on where you think that only happens if we set a "precedent" for it first?

[graham4anything]

29. Roe V. Wade you say HA HA HA HA HA HA HA so you wanna do to guns what they did to Roe?

Sure, bring it on.

Let's narrow it to the tiniest sliver so that gun purchases, and gun uses are almost
non-existent, especially, how bout we all do that in Kansas?

Where the assholes with guns assasssantated a doctor in a church.

So YES BRING IT ON NRA GROUPIES, BRING IT ON

Let's do to guns what the awipes on the right did to a woman's right to privacy

AND BY THE WAY
LET'S PUT PROTESTERS OUTSIDE EVERY SINGLE GUN DEALER AND GUN SHOW

like the right puts zombies and nut jobs outside townhalls when a democrat is speaking
and the right puts those weirdos outside health clinics 24/7/365

and let's take pictures and notes

OK, YEAH, let's do just that

YOU my friend just proved that indeed, without getting rid of an amendment, almost total change can happen

SO BRING IT ON.

And we can attribute this change to those that suggested it.

[beevul]

30. You forgot to plug for "mayor stop and frisk".

You're slipping.

[graham4anything]

31. Bloomberg financed the Calif. race between pro-nra and anti-nra. The anti-nra upset the pro-nra

and nothing can stop the shape of things to come(c)Max Frost and the troopers

[X_Digger]

33. You have a little fleck of spittle.. no.. other side.. up.. up.. right there. Got it.

Good luck with that.

[Major Nikon]

32. Funny you should mention Lawrence v Texas

That decision completely reversed a SCOTUS decision just 17 years prior.

Just sayin'

[white_wolf]

27. Your subject line is very debatable.

Elena Kagan got in trouble during her confirmation hearings for saying that she believes the Constitution grants rights as opposed to them pre-existing or coming from God. I view in pretty much the same way. Rights do not inherently exist. They are social constructs that society has deemed are important enough to enshrine in law. That is all, they aren't inherently, they weren't endowed by some Creator. They come from society and are nothing more than very important social constructs.

[jody]

38. Please read and understand SCOTUS UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' [font color = ff0000 size = 3]This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.[/font] The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

[white_wolf]

40. Kagan diagreeed as do I.

We are delving into the realm of philopsphy here by discussing where rights come from. What you cited is indeed the traditional view but that does not mean it is correct.

[jody]

41. Agree re philosophy. I put together a DU post in 2007 that I hoped would serve as a point of

departure for further discussion that never happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2980285&mesg_id=2981257

[white_wolf]

42. Too bad I missed that post. I would have joined in, but I wasn't here in 07 n/t

[jody]

43. Seems like RKBA is an excellent issue to discuss "rights" because it has divided and polarized

society more than most things, IMO even more than abortion.

If individuals do not have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, where right means preexisted our Constitution and in no way dependent upon it, then aren't all rights enumerated in the BOR just privileges granted by the federal government?

If so, then forget about unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth and powers retained by the people and states in the Tenth.

When that happens, Abraham Lincoln's dream of a people's government will have perished.

[white_wolf]

44. I disagree with your conclusion.

Simply because rights did not pre-exist the Constitution does not mean people's government will cease to exist. I don't see how viewing rights as social creations of society make them less likely to be respected than believing are inherent. I've never understood where these inherent rights come from if not society. If they were not created by human beings, then where did they come from? If you say they came from God as most conservatives do then you tie rights to the concept of God and until you prove God exists you can't prove rights exist.

[jody]

45. In spite of DOI(1776) and PA(1776) & VT(1777) declaring that rights exist, you continue to

believe "rights did not pre-exist the Constitution" ratified by the states later.
Constitution ratification dates
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Delaware; December 7, 1787
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Pennsylvania; December 12, 1787
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Jersey; December 18, 1787
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Georgia; January 2, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Connecticut; January 8, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts; February 6, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Maryland; April 28, 1788.
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina; May 23, 1788.
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788.
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina; November 21, 1789
• Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790.

You also want to talk about God as the source of "rights" but I've never said that.

I've posted several times that PA & VT's declaration of rights was simply a way of people in their sovereign capacity reserving unto themselves certain things that were off-limits to the government they were creating.

Rights of the individual protect each person against the tyranny of a simple majority in a pure democracy, a danger recognized by most of the founding fathers.

On a related vein, see:
Natural, inherent, inalienable rights versus privileges granted by Government
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x161892

Parsing Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions, 1776 and 1777
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x152320

More recently in DC v Heller (2008) SCOTUS acknowledged rights that PA & VT declared were "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" as preexisting our Constitution. The court also grouped rights enumerated in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments together, i.e. they survive or die together.

[white_wolf]

47. Natural and inherent rights are a logical fallacy though.

They had to come from somewhere. They did not simply exist in nature. Human beings created them. You can cite all the court cases you want. This is a philosophical issue, not a legal one. Human beings thought up and created the concept of rights. They were created by people. They are social constructs nothing more.

[jody]

48. I said rights are rights because people excluded them from authority to govern when they created

governments.

Doesn't matter before that, rights come from the people and means simply it's off-limits to government.

ON EDIT ADD
One state constitution said:

Construction of Declaration of Rights.

That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

[IDoMath]

4. Jefferson had his ass handed to him in Marbury vs Madison

So you'll need to overturn that, undo 200+ years of precedent and destroy the system of checks and balances that our government has operated under since that day.

Usually, I have to have this discussion with right wingers.

[MightyMopar]

6. Citezens United ruling has already many destroyed checks and balances

[IDoMath]

7. So you want to abandon constitutional supremacy and have a strong executive instead?

[MightyMopar]

8. The horse is long out of the barn on that one

Republicans have politicized the court for decades now. Watch out your cloaking device is fading in and out.

[IDoMath]

9. And you want to help them with that?

That's what your recommending.

[rhett o rick]

11. Huh? He said that lots of the so-called checks and balances have been abandoned. And you twist that

that to mean he wants "to abandon constitutional supremacy and have a strong executive instead?" WTF?

But since you brought it up, I believe your "strong executive" in Georgie Bush pushed thru the Patriot Act, domestic spying and indefinite detention. What the hell happened to your "constitutional supremacy?"

And where was your "constitutional supremacy" when the Super Supreme Court handed the presidency to Georgie Bush?

[IDoMath]

14. It all begins in 1803

The case of Marbury vs Madison dealt with two important questions;

1) Does the supreme have the power of judicial review? The english courts did not have this power and the writers of the consitution debated but never answered that question. So, the court took that power to itself. Congress has essentially ratified that act for 209 years by not acting to counter it. Without that power, the system of checks and balances we were taught as children does not exist. More importantly, without that power, question 2 could not be answered.

2) Article VI states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme law of the land" Today we readily take that to mean the Constitution AND THEN the federal laws are supreme. When Marbury vs Madison was decided this was not clear. Some argued that the constitution and federal law were on the same level. The court reasoned that the Constitution must take precedence over federal law or be rendered and impotent piece of paper.

Jefferson was furious about the case. He believed that constitutional interpretation was the sole providence of the EXECUTIVE branch.

The OP is positing that the Courts alter the constitution. This is not the case. The courts deal in questions that fall into spaces where disputes arise as to the interpretation. He is positing that the court can simply sweep amendments aside. It can not. Citizens United et al are terrible decisions but they do not alter the constitution. The Supreme Court decision in 2000 had the effect of handing Bush the presidency, but they did not decide the election. They decided a technical question about how the recount would be conducted.

These arguments about activists judges and "judge made law" are usually right wing arguments aimed at undoing the power of judicial review. This, apparently, is actually what the right wants according to some I've talked to. The irony is that if they eliminate judicial review, they also eliminate constitutional supremacy which they favor.

Our judicial system is imperfect and wildly misunderstood by the public but it is nowhere near as broken as the right or this OP would claim.

[rhett o rick]

18. Name calling voids anything you might have to say. Go away PLEASE. nm

[IDoMath]

19. Where was I name calling in that post?

[rhett o rick]

34. If you must continue.

"These arguments about activists judges and "judge made law" are usually right wing arguments aimed at undoing the power of judicial review." from post above. This in addition to "Have I just walked into free republic?" from your post #16, and "Usually, I have to have this discussion with right wingers." from your post #4, makes it plain that you think that anyone that disagrees with you is "right-wing".

Well I dont consider Thomas Jefferson as right wing and I happen to agree with him and not you.

But I can see that further discussion is futile.

[IDoMath]

35. Facts and analysis are name calling?

No, those are statements of fact. I have never previously heard those arguments come from anyone on the left. I am surprised to hear them here.

The political landscape changes all the time but I am stunned to see the left taking up these arguments.

[rhett o rick]

36. And you continue. Apparently you dont think much of Thomas Jefferson.

Also, apparently you dont listen to Thom Hartmann. If you want to have a decent discussion, dont imply that those that dont agree with you are representing the right-wing.

If a "strong" executive oversteps, they can be replaced in 4 years by a vote of We The People or they can be impeached by the Congress. Seems to me to be kinda Power Balancie. But if your Super Supreme Court oversteps, like they have recently, there is nothing that can be done, with the exception of amending the Constitution, which would be impossible today at least within a decade.

By the way your "Constitution Supremacy", didnt work at all re. Marbury. Justice Marshall pulled "judicial review" right out of his ass. He made a ruling that was not supported by the Constitution and there was no recourse by the other two branches of government nor by We The People.

[rhett o rick]

12. Ah yes, Marbuy vs Madison. That's where the Supreme Court said that despite what the

Constitution says they were assuming the power of judicial review. Which has lead us to where we are today with a Super Supreme Court that uses judicial review to over ride the other two branches of the government and mold laws to their liking.

When they make a ruling like Citizens United, neither other branch has a remedy other than the extremely difficulty of amending the Constitution. Or when they openly violate the Constitution by appointing Georgie Bush as president.

[MightyMopar]

13. The corporate whore Republicans have turned the Supreme Court in to a clown car

money=speech, corporations are people, why not dial gun ownership back to muskets?

[IDoMath]

16. Have I just walked into free republic?

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Read the decision. The court didn't appoint anybody. They made a decision about a technical issue that had the strategic effect of handing Bush Florida. While it may have been a bad decision in more ways than one, it didn't violate the consitution.

Judicial review does not override the the other branches. IT creates the system of checks and balances we are taught about in elementary school. Without it, the executive would have that power as Jefferson wanted and we would have the unbalanced stronge executive that Jefferson, Nixon, Ashcroft, Rove, Cheney and teh dominionists all want.

Is that really what you want?

[rhett o rick]

17. I wont continue a discussion with someone as rude as you. nm

[X_Digger]

20. I'm as gobsmacked as you.

I have to wonder how much people really know about our system of government.

[IDoMath]

21. It's a very complex system and we are essentially lied to in our schools

It takes a concentrated effort just to begin to get a real grasp on it.

[X_Digger]

22. Well, any high school government class will discuss the balance of power..

.. the executive's discretion in enforcing the laws congress passes, and the veto power..
.. the legislative's power over the purse strings which affects both the judiciary and executive branches, as well as confirmation of judges..
.. and the judiciary's power to resolve conflicts between laws and the constitution

[IDoMath]

23. But the analysis is incomplete and sometimes misleading.

It may seem a minor matter but most teachers will wash over that subject so quickly as to leave students with the impression that those powers are clearly written in constitution when, in fact, the judiciary's power is not. Maybe it's not possible, I don't know, I'm not a teacher but there are so many things I would put into the curriculum if I could.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Apparently, a strong, unbalanced executive is good when it's "one of OURS"...

I went to a public high school (in freaking FLORIDA, no less), and we were taught about
Marbury v. Madison.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. And that attitude can be found elsewhere at DU:

Start here and work down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022017516#post4

[white_wolf]

28. Seriously?! When did the left start opposing Judicial Review?

It's been around for 200 years. I've heard Thom Hartman talking about it own his show and I've always thought he was wrong on this issue. Judicial Review is absolutely necessary to our system of government.

[Eleanors38]

37. Concerning requirements we wear the same coat: The Press...

Over the yrs., that has been interpreted liberally to mean radio, T.V., computers, I-net, the stuff we are using now. Yet some here can't or won't see how the term "arms" -- much less specific than "press" -- is protected in the same way. They keep looking for "muskets" when they stand in plain sight, leaning against the "press."

[MightyMopar]

39. Arms like cannons and grenades back then vs drones and explosives like we have now?

The Xtreme Court has made a travesty of judicial review to the point it's become yet another instrument of corporate power. For all the grand speech, even in it's initial application it was about a lame duck president gaming the system in his party's favor.

[1-Old-Man]

46. What part of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion can be altered?

Can we restrict Christian services to only on sundays for instance? How about outlawing Buddhists? Would that be OK? How about if the Jewish people had to wear a yellow star on their clothing, just as a matter of public safety, would that work for you too?