|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IA: Rights can change outside the Constitution
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Kristina Botts assures us that a Clinton presidency would not endanger gun ownership thanks to congressional vote requirements [Second Amendment is not in peril]. Unfortunately, our constitutional rights are only as secure as the latest iteration of the Supreme Court allows them to be.
Some constitutional scholars estimate that 75 percent of federal activity is extra, or unconstitutional — all of it done without resorting to a constitutional convention. For example, federal meddling in education, health care, property rights, abortion, marriage, aspects of commerce, etc., were all achieved without specific enumeration in the Constitution. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(8/25/2016)
|
Tru dat. The Fourth Amendment is gone, now that the gub-mint passed that oh-bummer-care. They gits to see all my medical records and stuff, courtesy of the same political sector that pushed for the "right of privacy" when killing off unborn chilluns by they mamas' abortion docs.
I dunno how they can juxtapose them two diametrically opposed principles in they heads, but mebbe it because they got no principles excepting tellin other folk how they gots to live. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
