My understanding of the 2nd and my rights with it

[benstt]

39 delegates signed the Constitution of the United States and Jefferson was not one of them, one man's word should not supercede all of the founding fathers anyway. Also who is Justice Scalia to determine what our rights mean based on his personal opinion? There is a major indifference of what a politician thinks should be law to what actually is our birth rights, whatever party is in power at the time gets to determine the current justices when there is an opening and using them to push that party's agenda circumventing the Bill of Rights and playing politics with freedoms.

It's very easy to cherry pick a couple statements made throughout different periods in history to fit a narrative but it doesn't always validate an argument.

Just my thoughts!

Like I said about TJ, I my memory of it was not that good. I do recall him being in France at the time of the Constitutional convention but having a lot of input by letter. I recall he was also strongly supportive of adding the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was written and signed. He was not a signer on the Constitution but I would argue he had a lot of influence and likely a good understanding of what the mindset of the Founders was. Yes, I am aware of Madison's view on it.

As to Scalia, he and the rest of SCOTUS are the the nine who determine what the law is an what it says, per Marbury v. Madison. That's who he is. He also was not the first to say there are limits to a constitutional right. That goes way back. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Court has the ultimate authority to interpret what it means. The rights we have in the Constitution are law, and SCOTUS interprets the law. Just as SCOTUS has the power to determine what violates your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure or self incrimination in a criminal case, it has the power to determine the extent of your right to free speech, freedom from government imposed religion, and freedom to keep and bear arms. You can object to that one all you want but it will come to precisely nothing.

 

[10mmLife]

Like I said about TJ, I my memory of it was not that good. I do recall him being in France at the time of the Constitutional convention but having a lot of input by letter. I recall he was also strongly supportive of adding the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was written and signed. He was not a signer on the Constitution but I would argue he had a lot of influence and likely a good understanding of what the mindset of the Founders was. Yes, I am aware of Madison's view on it.

As to Scalia, he and the rest of SCOTUS are the the nine who determine what the law is an what it says, per Marbury v. Madison. That's who he is. He also was not the first to say there are limits to a constitutional right. That goes way back. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Court has the ultimate authority to interpret what it means. The rights we have in the Constitution are law, and SCOTUS interprets the law. Just as SCOTUS has the power to determine what violates your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure or self incrimination in a criminal case, it has the power to determine the extent of your right to free speech, freedom from government imposed religion, and freedom to keep and bear arms. You can object to that one all you want but it will come to precisely nothing.

“You can object to that one all you want but it will come to precisely nothing"

So are you saying protesting and standing up for our rights is futile?

It was determined years after the Bill of Rights through politicians that the supreme court had the power to allow restrictions on our rights when the purpose and intent during the creation of the supreme court was to make sure no citizens rights were infringed upon as outlined in the Bill of Rights, not through a weak interpretation of said rights by politically motivated extremist justices such as RGB.

 

[Talyn]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights (the first Ten Amendments) are tied together inextricably to protect individual rights. The Bill of Rights were designed to protect the "basic" individual rights of U.S. citizens, guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and exercise of religion; the right to fair legal procedure and to bear arms; and that powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved for the states and the people. Thus, the Bill of Rights are not "living".

The Bill of Rights [ushistory.org]

But the Founders provided the mechanism to amend to the Constitution to address other issues (not covered/or known of) at the time of the original Bill of Rights to supplement them. In fact, the 11th (1795) and 12th Amendments(1804) were used relatively close to the original to clarify judicial power, and establish the framework for electing the POTUS and vice-POTUS based on prior problems.

That being said, beyond the first 10 Amendments, subsequent amendments are a "living" expression of the overall Constitution.

The next Amendment didn't occur for 60 years, and the next three amendments addressed the aftermath of the Civil War. It was 43-50 years until the next set of Amendments. And Amendments can be repealed by others. Example: the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st.

BUT, some think of the whole Constitution as a restaurant menu that can be modified as a whole at a "whim", when a political philosophy can't be adopted through the regular legislative process. Various groups that are pushing their viewpoints/agendas that can't/or have no tolerance for the Amendment process tend to have this viewpoint.

This manner of thinking isn't compatible when it intends to "gut" the intent of the foundational Constitutiuon and Bill of Rights. And the "Ex Post Facto" provisions in the Constitution exist to protect the individual rights guarunteed int the Bill of Rights.

 

[SATRP]

The golden rule: he who controls the gold makes the rules.

The military corollary: he who controls the military controls the man who controls the gold.

Reality postulate: when a single man controls both, he controls all.

 

[SATRP]

Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America delineates the process for amending the constitution.

Article VI, Section 2 clearly states that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that no law is valid that contradicts it. Hence, all gun control laws are invalid. To enact any gun control law, the Article V process is controlling.