Of course they do. In the days when the First Amendment was written, there was no worldwide communication. There was no anonymity. If you had something disparaging to say to someone, you had to say it to their face and deal with the consequences, not having the luxury of hiding behind a keyboard from 3,000 miles away.....
Several Democrats, including the President himself, have stated that no Constitutional Amendment is absolute. That would be EVERY amendment, including the First.....
That's the same decision. SCOTUS said that African Americans didn't get the same rights as citizens, which was a terrible decision. Had it gone the correct way, "Free black citizens would have the right to travel about the United States“‘without pass or passport,” to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act for which a white person could be punished. Further, black citizens would have “the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state’s] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 Howell) 393, 417 (1857))." Terrible that African Americans didn't enjoy these rights. https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/0...-scott-should-apply-to-all-americans-on-guns/
It's funny how the anti-gun lobby's mantra is that the Constitution was written during a different time, and the Second Amendment as written is outdated an no longer applies to modern society. Their hypocrisy and agenda are revealed since they think that ONLY the Second Amendment is outdated....
The Framers seemed to see it as an individual right in their state constitutions. It would take weapons grade cognitive dissonance to hold that it was a collective right at the federal level. Let's start with state constitutions in 1776: Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23. Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
And so, you take their words at face value. Militia: Necessary Right of the people: Shall not be infringed. Who holds the right that shall not be infringed?
And they're absolutely correct. There's an entire process for amending the Constitution laid out in Article 5. How do you think the Amendments were added in the first place? Magic? The US Constitution is NOT a set of tablets brought down from the mount bearing the immutable word of God. Its a legal contract between the State and it's citizens that it's authors rightly realized that it might, from time to time require changes. Hence Article 5. It's not by any stretch of the imagination easy to do but obviously it has been done in the past and might be done in the future. Who knows?.
You have to take the entire Amendment in context including it's punctuation, not just individual words or sentence. Which is why we have lawyers (yeah us). Give a soup recipe to 6 different lawyers your going to get 6 different interpretations of how it should be prepared. And in the end? Neither your opinion or mine matters, only those of successive Supreme Court Justices. That's how the US Constitution is supposed to work. You get your say at the ballot box. After that? Good luck.
or they claim the ninth protects abortion or gay marriage which aren't mentioned but the right to own firearms is not really relevant even though there is the ninth and the second
it's a worthless claim unless they establish that the government unit they are talking about has been properly delegated the power to limit the right. the second is not really about what free citizens CAN DO but what the federal government CANNOT DO
"Absolutely" Really. The 13th amendment is not absolute, so people CAN be held as slaves. The 15ht Amendment is not absolute, so people CAN be denied the right to vote based on their race The 19th amendment is not absolute, so people CAN be denied the right to vote based on their sex. Right? If you believe Biden's comment was made in the context of amending the constitution to change the 2nd Amendment, you're lying to yourself.
so tell us what you think the second amendment means. This attorney (yeah I am) believes that the second is a negative restriction on a federal government that was never given any power in this area in the first place. Now most of us understand what FDR did with the commerce clause in order to create a federal power to ban or limit the arms of private citizens. It's bogus but unfortunately the FDR supreme court upheld it and conservative justices sadly respected bad precedent
All of which are examples of other Constitutions. Which again have to to be interpreted by subsequent generations as best is possible via, once again the Courts. Article V11 of the State of Ohio's Constitution is interesting though. Just as well the Federal Government maintained a standing Army (Navy and Air Force) otherwise they'd be a photo of the emperor in every American Household by now.
Of course they can, Article V says so. You problem is your conflating can with should. Prior to the 13th Amendment people slavery was common practice in the US. Before it's passing the US Constitution as then interpreted by the Supreme Court meant US Citizens had every legal right to own as many slaves as they wanted and could afford. Didn't make it right, just legal. As for Biden? I'm not 'fooling myself'. I have zero idea what he was referring to because (again) I'm not a mind reader. I can however assume that's what he was referring to because ... well it's there in black and white.You think that's not what Biden was referring to? Fine, prove it.
Ah. You DO believe Biden's comment was made in the context of amending the constitution to change the 2nd Amendment You're lying to yourself. And you're done lying to me.
How the hell would I know what he was referring to, let alone prove it? All I know for certain is that Article V exists, end of story. And of course based on your response above? That you can't prove what he meant either. You just seem to be annoyed for some reason that I called you on it.
Depends how far and it what context that right applies as, of is determined by the Courts. The lawyers appearing before the court cherry pick the interpretation of the act or section in question that suits their cause (backed by by precedent of course) the judge decides. The entire amendment matters not just the part you think best suits your particular argument. As I said 1 soup recipe, 6 different lawyers/cooks.
You have to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment. That's 38 states. If as few as 13 fail to ratify the amendment fails.
And? I merely stated that a legal mechanism for amending the constitution exists within that document itself. I also pointed out it wasn't easy to do. So whats your point?
