|
|
|
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:
Pew: Majority Now Says SCOTUS Should Base Rulings On What Constitution Means “In Current Times,” Not Originally
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two: The Democratic surge this year towards a “living Constitution” is probably an artifact of the post-Parkland push for gun control. There have been mass shootings in the past but the string of horrors that began last fall and ran through February was an endless nightmare — Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Stoneman Douglas High. A few months before Vegas, a gunman nearly massacred a group of Republican congressmen on a baseball field. The Second Amendment has been a hot topic for the worst possible reasons for almost a year. And because it addresses a technology that’s evolved a ton since the time the amendment was enacted, it’s also invariably a prime target in the “originalism versus living Constitution” debate. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/12/2018)
|
I'm not big on polls because the Constitution exists to thwart them.
Nevertheless, this is an alarming phenomenon. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/12/2018)
|
^
True that. The concept of a "living" constitution will leave us with a dead Bill of Rights. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
