Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amendment != Living document theory. Not sure why you're spazzing out. He was correct. That doesn't mean he agrees with the living document theory, but many do, and it has been in effect for a hundred years.
Amendment proves the opposite of the Living document theory. If the Constitution was a living document it wouldn't require amendments in the first place.
"The court’s interpretation is the constitution."
And it's a"crime" so many judges do NOT follow what the Framers said about the part the judges rule on!
The "Framers" were adherents to the 18th century Enlightenment and it is most ironic to hear the least enlightened faction of American politics whimper about what they think the Framers actually meant. They have no clue. That is why the Framers, in their wisdom, established a "supreme" court to be the final interpreter of the constitution. Donald Trump or Ted Nugent or Rudy Giuliani or some evangelical TV preacher have no more weight in the interpretation of the law or constitution than I do.
The Framers understood that the constitution would have to be interpreted in relation to situations that they never considered in future times that they could never anticipate. The Supreme Court is the body that makes those interpretations.
The Constitution gives the courts authority to determine the constitutionality of laws. You can't have it both ways. You either accept the court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or you don't accept the Constitution. To accept the 2nd Amendment and not accept the court's authority is hypocritical.
Finally - and I am baffled why I have to say this over and over again - individual citizens don't have the authority to interpret the Constitution. That's the court's job. You may think your interpretation is clear and the anti-gun people are just as certain that they're interpretation is clear.
For the record, I am pro-2A, owner of multiple guns, and an NRA member. I also believe in the Constitution and the SCOTUS' right to interpret it.
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
There is nothing vague about the Second Amendment. The reason there is confusion is because the structure of the United States government was completely changed after the 14th amendment. The Second Amendment was originally only a limitation on the Federal Government.
The Constitution gives the courts authority to determine the constitutionality of laws. You can't have it both ways. You either accept the court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or you don't accept the Constitution. To accept the 2nd Amendment and not accept the court's authority is hypocritical.
Finally - and I am baffled why I have to say this over and over again - individual citizens don't have the authority to interpret the Constitution. That's the court's job. You may think your interpretation is clear and the anti-gun people are just as certain that they're interpretation is clear.
....unless the Court comes out with an "interpretation" that clearly is different from what the plain language of the Constitution says.
For example, the Constitution says clearly that we will have one President and one Vice President. But suppose the Court somehow comes up with an "interpretation" saying that we can have three Presidents and five Veeps. The Court is clearly wrong. Should we go ahead and elect a bunch more Pres and VPs anyway?
Of course not.
The 2nd amendment is in the same boat. It clearly says that since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted... and it makes no exceptions. (Other parts of the Constitution contain explicit exceptions, but the 2nd clearly doesn't.) If the Court announces there ARE restrictions where there clearly aren't, do we believe the obviously-wrong Court or the Constitution?
Liberals, of course, have been lying their arses off for decades, pretending they believe there can be exception, pretending they believe the 2nd only applies to militia or militia members etc. The language of the Constitution had a standard meaning back in 1791 (same meaning it has today, in fact, so there should be no confusion due to era), and only by violating that standard can the liberals pretend the 2nd doesn't say what it says. Telling the truth has no place in the liberal anti-gun-rights agenda. Getting their agenda is all, no matter how much lying and pretending it takes.
And then they immediately pile on, and insist that their "different" interpretation is as valid as others. They carefully don't take into account that anyone who speaks normal English can see the liberal interpretation is simply not legitimate, any more than an "interpretation" that says we should have three Presidents is not legitimate, and is not even worth discussing since it's obviously false to any normal person speaking normal English.
There is no god or gods involved within the Constitution.
The "Creator" endowed us with "certain unalienable rights". Those rights are "protected" by the US Constitution, not bestowed or infringed upon by the branches of government.
If it offends you that your rights were granted by God, feel free to forfeit them.
Why not just write it in clear and precise wording so that we would hardly need a Supreme Court? Why all the vagueness? They should have included a term glossary.
Did you NOT read the quotes I provided from our Founders and on what THEY MEANT?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
