Probably only Donald Trump would think that there would never be a need to amend due to changing circumstances that were not forseeable at the time.
The implication is that no part of the constitution nor any of the amendments should be absolute. This includes both 1A and 2A.
zantax
771
And you are wrong again. No such implication exists, those rights existed before the constitution, they were not granted by it, merely recognized.
Rights are completely dependent on society.
Which does not change the fact that rights are not absolute.
And you are wrong again. No such implication exists, those rights existed before the constitution, they were not granted by it, merely recognized.
Yes you did.
Are you saying that there is a clause that prohibits the amending of 1A and 2A?
Apparently, logic is neither a prerequisite nor corequisite in posts.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how inalienable rights work.
Speech, worship, self-defense, and the right to bear arms are merely recognized by the constitution. They were always there.
Technically no.
But to violate the bill of rights would destroy everything the constitution was meant to enshrine and uphold. At that point the document is worthless and the people would have the right to restore their rights by force.
See the American Revolution.
Thanks for your reply. Does “technically no” mean that in fact they are not absolute? That indeed they can be changed?
zantax
781
No, I didn’t, that we have the right to speech and to self defense and that it predates the constitution, is not saying they are absolute rights, they can be abridged after due process when someone commits a crime for example.
zantax
782
No, I am saying they are inalienable rights and though you could technically amend the constitution so that our government no longer recognized them, they would still be our rights and we would have a conversation about what the consent of the governed means afterwards. Probably a very noisy one.
They are absolute.
The state can only recognize, protect, or infringe upon inalienable rights. They can’t create or destroy them.
So where did these rights come from? Did the indigenous peoples of what is now the USA have those rights?
Yes they did.
The Europeans infringed upon their rights.
This isn’t complicated.
zantax
786
And it didn’t work out so well for them.
zantax
787
They are intrinsic, part of our very nature. Would you punish a dog for biting a man who is kicking him?
zantax
788
It’s always amusing though when liberals get around to arguing we don’t really have any rights unless the government says we do.
Intrinsic to whom or what and from whom or what? Did the convicts that were sent to America have those same rights?
