Are any Constitutional Amendments absolute?

[Ralph Wiggum]

Have heard poop for brains and pants Joey keep repeating "The Second Amendment is not absolute".

Example from tonight:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-address-gun-control-assault-weapons-ban

Now, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty damn good at language and linguistics. Just for poops and laughs, if the 2nd amendment right to own a gun (or cannon, perhaps a musket if you wish) were removed, what would be "absolute" about any other Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Perhaps an Executive, Judicial and Legislative would remove the freedom of the press, speech, or religion. Or any other that might inconvenience either party.  Just a refresher:

1   Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2   Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3   No quartering of soldiers.
4   Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5   Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6   Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7   Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8   Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9   Other rights of the people.
10   Powers reserved to the states.

If we remove anything or disregard any, then we're all freaking doomed.

[Eupher]

Well, from my uneducated POV, since the Bill of Rights was enacted per Article V of the US Constitution, it stands to reason that, in the same manner as the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), those first 10 Amendments could also be repealed in the same manner that the 18th Amendment was repealed by enacting and ratifying the 21st Amendment.

I don't see it happening in my lifetime, but I do know Leftists are determined to erase the parts of the Constitution that don't fit their world view. They are simply relentless.

[Happy Fun Ball]

Only the ones the democrats invent out of thin air.

[Drafe Hoblin]

Self-defense is common sense.  I'm with the Founding Fathers.

In most rural communities, it was against the law not to store gunpowder in your home.  Because you lived near the wilderness frontier, I.E. border...  It was against the law to deny your neighbor the use of your gun if he needed it.

When Little Turtle began raiding the frontier from Michigan to Florida, the Second Amendment solidified its absoluteness.

[Old n Grumpy]

By eliminating the 2nd, you disarm the public and pave the way to eliminate the rest.

Just look at what has happened in Canada in the last several months.

[FlaGator]

The Second Amendment is for governments who ignore the First Amendment.

[ADsOutburst]

Have heard poop for brains and pants Joey keep repeating "The Second Amendment is not absolute".

Example from tonight:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-address-gun-control-assault-weapons-ban

Now, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty damn good at language and linguistics. Just for poops and laughs, if the 2nd amendment right to own a gun (or cannon, perhaps a musket if you wish) were removed, what would be "absolute" about any other Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Perhaps an Executive, Judicial and Legislative would remove the freedom of the press, speech, or religion. Or any other that might inconvenience either party.  Just a refresher:

1   Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2   Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3   No quartering of soldiers.
4   Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5   Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6   Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7   Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8   Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9   Other rights of the people.
10   Powers reserved to the states.

If we remove anything or disregard any, then we're all freaking doomed.

He actually once said "No Amendment is absolute", and if infringing on the 2nd weren't bad enough, the others should provide ample reason why that was a stupid thing to say.

It's the Constitution, not the ****ing Pirate's Code.

[enslaved1]

Well, from my uneducated POV, since the Bill of Rights was enacted per Article V of the US Constitution, it stands to reason that, in the same manner as the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), those first 10 Amendments could also be repealed in the same manner that the 18th Amendment was repealed by enacting and ratifying the 21st Amendment.

I don't see it happening in my lifetime, but I do know Leftists are determined to erase the parts of the Constitution that don't fit their world view. They are simply relentless.

My somewhat educated POV is yes, there is an option to change the Constitution, but the proggies know it takes way too much agreement either in Congress or through the states holding conventions, as well as they don't really want to sign their names to such actions.  They will happily talk all day long, but attach your name to repealing an amendment, especially one of those precious first ten?  That takes conviction and carries the distinct risk of political suicide they don't want to test. 

[FlaGator]

First of all, I don't believe there are any natural rights. I'm not given certain rights just because I am a human being. I have no right to food clothing and shelter. I have no right to a job and, in fact, I have no right to exist even though I do exist. Does God grant us rights? The only one that I can think of is the right to be with Him when this life is over if I believe that his Son Jesus Christ died for me to atone for my sins and life that believe. Other than that there are no other rights he guarantees me while I live in this reality.

Now governments can grant you what they call rights but are they really? They are not rights if they can be taken away from you. They are privileges and nothing more. They dress them up with fancy language calling them "inalienable" or "God-given" but in reality, they are nothing more than privileges the rulers allow you.

I think the first mistake in the constitution was the abolition of alcohol and then its repeal. Can you really have a negative right? No. You can't even have a negative privilege. A privilege that denies you the ability to do something. I don't think so. You can grant the privilege to all men that they are free then you can't create a privilege to enslave people. It would be a contradiction of the previous privilege.

Once prohibition was ratified the Bill of Rights became a list of privileges that the government allows us. At that point, all the "rights" were officially demoted to privileges and thus put on the table for future consideration.

Now the whole legal system is a contradiction of itself. Michael Flynn can be guilty of lying to the FBI because lying to the FBI matters. Michael Sussmann can be acquitted of lying to the FBI because lying to the FBI isn't a big deal. Drinking alcohol can be perfectly legal but smoking pot will get you some time in jail.  This only makes sense if all rights and behaviors are privileges. Thanks to the repeal of prohibition and the misuse of the term right, the privilege to consume alcohol because a right, and the right to smoke pot because a privilege that is denied to people.

In the end, there are no rights, just privileges that can be granted or taken away based on how screwed up the voting public is.

[Eupher]

^^^

From my research in how the Constitution was developed, the Framers absolutely believed in "certain unalienable rights" such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That phrase was part of the Declaration of Independence, but it still formed a solid framework for COTUS.

That "pursuit" wasn't a guarantee that the sought-after happiness would be realized. Only the pursuit of same. If you achieved happiness, great. If not, keep trying.

Neither was COTUS written to guarantee anyone food, shelter, and clothing. Those are not the unalienable rights that the Declaration referenced.

The Bill of Rights certainly put down in writing - the absence of which would certainly have not resulted in COTUS' ratification - how government was limited in what it could do towards limiting free speech, restricting the freedom to peaceably assemble, or worshiping or not worshiping as one chose. In that sense, the BOR did not refer to "unalienable rights" like the Declaration did. But those first 10 Amendments to COTUS were absolute requirements for anti-Federalists and states' rights advocates, to make sure that these "rights" were protected. Those first 10 Amendments were passed by Congress and ratified by the states by 1791.

George Carlin had a very compelling argument along the lines of "privileges" that the government occasionally bestows on the citizen. He specifically referenced the ~110,000 Japanese-American citizens who were locked away in internment camps during WWII. No due process, no arguments, just into the camps they went - just because they or their ancestors came from Japan, an avowed enemy. In that sense, yep, you're right -- "liberty" in this case was a privilege that was taken away from those people and thus it isn't an unalienable right.

But another Framer (I think Jefferson) said, "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This tells me that the most basic of the unalienable rights - Liberty - is always under threat and can be removed by despots. In other words, no unalienable right is immune from the actions of tyrants and it requires a watchful citizenry to keep government in check.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Thanks for the chatter, folks. Lots of great points made by all.

[FlaGator]

^^^

From my research in how the Constitution was developed, the Framers absolutely believed in "certain unalienable rights" such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That phrase was part of the Declaration of Independence, but it still formed a solid framework for COTUS.

That "pursuit" wasn't a guarantee that the sought-after happiness would be realized. Only the pursuit of same. If you achieved happiness, great. If not, keep trying.

Neither was COTUS written to guarantee anyone food, shelter, and clothing. Those are not the unalienable rights that the Declaration referenced.

The Bill of Rights certainly put down in writing - the absence of which would certainly have not resulted in COTUS' ratification - how government was limited in what it could do towards limiting free speech, restricting the freedom to peaceably assemble, or worshiping or not worshiping as one chose. In that sense, the BOR did not refer to "unalienable rights" like the Declaration did. But those first 10 Amendments to COTUS were absolute requirements for anti-Federalists and states' rights advocates, to make sure that these "rights" were protected. Those first 10 Amendments were passed by Congress and ratified by the states by 1791.

George Carlin had a very compelling argument along the lines of "privileges" that the government occasionally bestows on the citizen. He specifically referenced the ~110,000 Japanese-American citizens who were locked away in internment camps during WWII. No due process, no arguments, just into the camps they went - just because they or their ancestors came from Japan, an avowed enemy. In that sense, yep, you're right -- "liberty" in this case was a privilege that was taken away from those people and thus it isn't an unalienable right.

But another Framer (I think Jefferson) said, "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." This tells me that the most basic of the unalienable rights - Liberty - is always under threat and can be removed by despots. In other words, no unalienable right is immune from the actions of tyrants and it requires a watchful citizenry to keep government in check.

How would you define a right?

[Eupher]

How would you define a right?

Pretty simple, but it won't surprise you that they pretty much mirror the BOR and the impact of John Locke on the Declaration. In no particular order:

• Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness. No guarantees for "happiness." You don't like your current situation? Fine, initiate action to change it. The world doesn't "owe" you anything.
• Free speech in thought and word. Somebody doesn't like what I say? Too f'n bad. Embrace the suck.
• Freedom to worship whatever or whomever I want. Or not worship anything or anyone at all.
• Freedom to peaceably assemble to address grievances with the government. That doesn't mean trashing the venue or destroying property.
• Freedom of mobility. I can live wherever I want, go wherever I want.
• Due process under the law. This is especially applicable regarding the next point.
• Freedom to bear Arms.
• Equal justice under the law. Certainly not what we have now -- the elite class ignores the rules and laws set up for everybody else.

The rest of the BOR is specific limitations on the federal government and remand everything not covered within to the states, or to the people.

That's off the top of my head. There may be more, but I think that covers "rights". And, as you correctly pointed out, that most fundamental of "rights" - Liberty - can be, in extreme cases such as the Japanese American situation and Lincoln's trashing of habeus corpus - summarily dismissed. Shouldn't happen, but it has. No denying that.

[FlaGator]

Pretty simple, but it won't surprise you that they pretty much mirror the BOR and the impact of John Locke on the Declaration. In no particular order:

• Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness. No guarantees for "happiness." You don't like your current situation? Fine, initiate action to change it. The world doesn't "owe" you anything.
• Free speech in thought and word. Somebody doesn't like what I say? Too f'n bad. Embrace the suck.
• Freedom to worship whatever or whomever I want. Or not worship anything or anyone at all.
• Freedom to peaceably assemble to address grievances with the government. That doesn't mean trashing the venue or destroying property.
• Freedom of mobility. I can live wherever I want, go wherever I want.
• Due process under the law. This is especially applicable regarding the next point.
• Freedom to bear Arms.
• Equal justice under the law. Certainly not what we have now -- the elite class ignores the rules and laws set up for everybody else.

The rest of the BOR is specific limitations on the federal government and remand everything not covered within to the states, or to the people.

That's off the top of my head. There may be more, but I think that covers "rights". And, as you correctly pointed out, that most fundamental of "rights" - Liberty - can be, in extreme cases such as the Japanese American situation and Lincoln's trashing of habeus corpus - summarily dismissed. Shouldn't happen, but it has. No denying that.

Those are examples of what you see as rights. What I'm asking is what is a right? Define for me what a right is using no examples or metaphors. What makes life, liberty or happiness a right?

[Eupher]

Those are examples of what you see as rights. What I'm asking is what is a right? Define for me what a right is using no examples or metaphors. What makes life, liberty or happiness a right?

A "right" is a condition or attribute that is inherent and associated with a human being. In my opinion, of course. You want more? Go read John Locke.

[ExGeeEye]

It may help to note that, of the 10 Commandments, at least three (6-8) are orders from God not to infringe on certain rights, those being Life, the Inviolability of the marriage covenant, and Property.  Other Divine laws established or implied other rights, including that of self-defense, from which we derive a right to implements of defense.  Jesus' instruction to keep and bear arms in Luke 22:36 implies the right to do so, which may not be infringed without incurring the wrath of God!

I would posit that this implies Divine granting of those rights, with consequences for any man -- including a king -- who might violate them.

Certainly, entire governments have been set up whose survival depended on violation or denial of rights, but that does not vititate them.

[Eupher]

It may help to note that, of the 10 Commandments, at least three (6-8) are orders from God not to infringe on certain rights, those being Life, the Inviolability of the marriage covenant, and Property.  Other Divine laws established or implied other rights, including that of self-defense, from which we derive a right to implements of defense.  Jesus' instruction to keep and bear arms in Luke 22:36 implies the right to do so, which may not be infringed without incurring the wrath of God!

I would posit that this implies Divine granting of those rights, with consequences for any man -- including a king -- who might violate them.

Certainly, entire governments have been set up whose survival depended on violation or denial of rights, but that does not vititate them.

Excellent point. H5

[FlaGator]

I like both of those answers from the above messages. Something we inherently have that shouldn't be infringed upon. Something inherent in our being human. Now my question is why are these things inherent? I can't accept the answer, "just because we're human". I see rights as being given or being defined somewhere and thus there needs to be a giver or definer. I accept God as the giver/definer but in reading the Bible it shows that God infringes upon those rights all the time and the argument can be made that since he is God he can do that. He has the "right" to do that. That being the case are they really rights or just privileges that God has bestowed on us for being created in His image.

I am not attempting to start an argument over these points. These are questions I have been struggling with myself for a long time. Are rights given by a higher power or did we as humans assign them to ourselves in order to separate humans from the rest of creation. If they are from men then they mean little and are subject to redefinition at the whim of the current society.

For me, this subject is tied to the debate on morals and ethics. Are morals unchanging or are they normative to each culture?

[Eupher]

I like both of those answers from the above messages. Something we inherently have that shouldn't be infringed upon. Something inherent in our being human. Now my question is why are these things inherent? I can't accept the answer, "just because we're human". I see rights as being given or being defined somewhere and thus there needs to be a giver or definer. I accept God as the giver/definer but in reading the Bible it shows that God infringes upon those rights all the time and the argument can be made that since he is God he can do that. He has the "right" to do that. That being the case are they really rights or just privileges that God has bestowed on us for being created in His image.

I am not attempting to start an argument over these points. These are questions I have been struggling with myself for a long time. Are rights given by a higher power or did we as humans assign them to ourselves in order to separate humans from the rest of creation. If they are from men then they mean little and are subject to redefinition at the whim of the current society.

For me, this subject is tied to the debate on morals and ethics. Are morals unchanging or are they normative to each culture?

I think it boils down to the fact that humans get to define what we are and what we are entitled to, in terms of "rights". There is no other being on this planet that has the means or capability of telling us otherwise. It's really that simple.

Sorta like the history of war is actually written by the victors. Those who are vanquished don't get to tell the tale.

YMMV.

[Eupher]

I think we're clearly seeing in our (American) culture that norms and values are changing -- and I, for one, reject many of those changes.

Those who are younger than I no doubt see me as Mr. Wilson from the "Dennis the Menace" TV series when he shakes his hand and brays, "Get off my lawn!"

You damned right, "Get off my lawn." Until you've seen what I've seen, done what I've done, and endured what I've endured, you don't HAVE THE RIGHT to tell me what MY values are. 

[FlaGator]

Sadly, America is circling in the toilet. What is considered moral now was immoral when I was growing up. I always expected societal change but I truly believed that our basic morals would stay in tack. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. As our morals evaporate and the more society relabels evil as good the worse things become. I walked to school and rode my bike all over town and now you don't dare do that in a big city. If you do someone either grabs your kids or reports you for endangering them by letting them have some fun.

As Lucifer desires, the world is now full of hatred and deviant behavior and we call it progress and say that it is a good thing. The more we turn from God the worse things get. Our rights are meaningless if those in power can take them from us, and they will take them one by one until they are gone and we become slaves to the elite. Once the first and second amendments are restricted then the rest will fall like dominoes.

I am afraid we care closer to this moment than most realize. I use to not be such a pessimist but the world gives me little reason for optimism. Sometimes I wish the world was like it was when I was 12 years old. It was a much more optimistic world then. Just think, back then we looked to the future and all that it would bring us. Now the future has arrived and it's not what we expected.

[Eupher]

Sadly, America is circling in the toilet. What is considered moral now was immoral when I was growing up. I always expected societal change but I truly believed that our basic morals would stay in tack. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. As our morals evaporate and the more society relabels evil as good the worse things become. I walked to school and rode my bike all over town and now you don't dare do that in a big city. If you do someone either grabs your kids or reports you for endangering them by letting them have some fun.

As Lucifer desires, the world is now full of hatred and deviant behavior and we call it progress and say that it is a good thing. The more we turn from God the worse things get. Our rights are meaningless if those in power can take them from us, and they will take them one by one until they are gone and we become slaves to the elite. Once the first and second amendments are restricted then the rest will fall like dominoes.

I am afraid we care closer to this moment than most realize. I use to not be such a pessimist but the world gives me little reason for optimism. Sometimes I wish the world was like it was when I was 12 years old. It was a much more optimistic world then. Just think, back then we looked to the future and all that it would bring us. Now the future has arrived and it's not what we expected.

You're singin' my song. When the streets are choked with school buses and Mommy dropping off little Timmy at the elementary school - all because the lawyers have decreed that it's up to the taxpayers to protect little Timmy during every waking moment of his school day - it gives me time to question that concept that George Carlin talked about so eloquently:

"Child Worship"

Kids aren't allowed to be kids any more. They're not allowed to have a scraped knee or chipped tooth out of fear they'll somehow be crippled for life by hanging upside down on a set of monkey bars with nothing but asphalt below. Kids are malleable and bounce better than adults do. That's why they heal faster. 

It's a completely different world now than it was in the 60s when I had my Schwinn Sting Ray bike, rode to hell and back, and somehow survived. And yep, I walked to school more than a mile each way, uphill of course, in the snow. No bus for kids unless you lived 1.5 miles from school.

[FlaGator]

You're singin' my song. When the streets are choked with school buses and Mommy dropping off little Timmy at the elementary school - all because the lawyers have decreed that it's up to the taxpayers to protect little Timmy during every waking moment of his school day - it gives me time to question that concept that George Carlin talked about so eloquently:

"Child Worship"

Kids aren't allowed to be kids any more. They're not allowed to have a scraped knee or chipped tooth out of fear they'll somehow be crippled for life by hanging upside down on a set of monkey bars with nothing but asphalt below. Kids are malleable and bounce better than adults do. That's why they heal faster. 

It's a completely different world now than it was in the 60s when I had my Schwinn Sting Ray bike, rode to hell and back, and somehow survived. And yep, I walked to school more than a mile each way, uphill of course, in the snow. No bus for kids unless you lived 1.5 miles from school.

But it is completely okay to hop them up on hormones and surgically change boys to girls and girls to boys because apparently, this is the latest fad and once it passes there are going to be a lot of pissed off young adults who will probably take out the frustrations by killing parents and shooting up schools. Which, of course, will be blamed on guns and not the mentally tortured kids pulling the trigger.

[Eupher]

But it is completely okay to hop them up on hormones and surgically change boys to girls and girls to boys because apparently, this is the latest fad and once it passes there are going to be a lot of pissed off young adults who will probably take out the frustrations by killing parents and shooting up schools. Which, of course, will be blamed on guns and not the mentally tortured kids pulling the trigger.

Agree completely. The slippery slope has become an absolute uncontrolled sleigh ride with no Santa or Rudolph in charge.