Posted on 04/10/2018 1:07:52 PM PDT by marktwain
An Illinois technocrat has demonstrated the Progressive attitude about the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Representative Bill Foster has a PhD in Physics from Harvard. He was raised and earned his Bachelor degree in ultra-liberal Madison, Wisconsin. In his view, the Constitution is a document that can be re-interpreted to mean different things every few years. That is true in a sense. Amendments to the Constitution can be put forward and passed any time. It is clear a constitutional amendment is not what Representative Foster is talking about. From chicagotribune.com:
Flanked by two area high school students, a pediatrician and the mother of a gun violence victim, U.S. Rep. Bill Foster told a community forum audience Monday the Second Amendment should be up for reinterpretation as new generations come into power.
“It always has been up for reinterpretation,” Foster, D-Naperville, said during an event focused on gun violence. “The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change. A civil war cannon is frankly much less dangerous than weapons we are allowed to carry on the streets in many of the states and cities in our country today. This is something where technology changes and public attitude changes and both are important in each of the generations.”
What does “reinterpretation” mean? It means you take the same words in the Constitution, and apply a different meaning to them. If you can do that, the Constitution only means what you want it to mean, when you want it to mean it.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
What an ignorant ass
I guess he thinks The Constitution doesn’t have amendment procedures and should be decided by majority votes
But with a degree in physics, no wonder he doesn’t understand legalities
>
What does “reinterpretation” mean? It means you take the same words in the Constitution, and apply a different meaning to them. If you can do that, the Constitution only means what you want it to mean, when you want it to mean it.
>
SLIGHT correction: same words in the Constitution, that interfere w/ their wants/agenda.
They’ll *never* “re-interpret”: being stopped by the cops (on their way to ‘cast a vote’) or their pension/bennies/protections or (which I STILL don’t understand how they get away w/ this) ‘exclusions’ in enforcement of the Law
Course, I note no better from the (R)N(C) either...
I interpret it to mean anyone who thinks it’s meaning can change over time should be assured they are correct by having their first amendment right of free speech taken away from them.
Lock them in a cell until they change their mind. Then restore all their rights.
While the Chicago suburbs are in general getting more liberal as the rats flee the ship that is Cook County, the reason this asshat was able to get elected is because they gerrymandered this district to ensure a Democrat would win. They tied the cities of Aurora and Joliet together (which have significant Hispanic populations) and pretty much screwed over everyone packed into this travesty of a district.
“This guy has a PhD in physics yet doesn’t know the carnage a civil war cannon ball can inflict?”
Well, it might have been in astrophysics...no cannonballs out there! /s;)
“OATH!?” What the HELL izzat!?
Democrats know as much about what an oath is as they know what the constitution is.
Foster is another name to remember when CW II goes “hot.”
One of the basic principles of national and international law is “Certainty”. In other words the law can’t be interpreted one way one year and a different way the next year. This guy is a Moron. Perhaps he should have taken at least one law class if he wanted to go into politics.
Then let me bring a Gatling gun to the range.
Shirley, you must be thinking of the koranimal "Queeran!"
It's easy to get the two confused...
That’s the reason why these wimpy pukes want to ban guns.
They know our side WILL wipe them out if push comes to shove. Keep pushing then you bastards.
The document itself, in Art VI, Clause 2, says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
________________
So, the Constitution says it and U. S, and all laws created under its authority, are The Law of the Land.
If the Constitution is as flexible as this guy claims, then the Constitution is not the Law of the Land, and was not the Law of the Land from the moment it was penned. In other words, before it was approved by a majority of the 13, it was already a false document, because it immediately didn’t say what it said, but rather whatever men thought it meant instead.
That is what this guy is saying.
How many of these geniuses in Congress have actually read all of the 77 Federalist Papers? The individual State Constitutional debates?
Sure the Constitutional isn't perfect, but everything except insanity was debated...
It didn't take 16 years to create it for no reason.
The Bill of Rights is a statement, not a statute. It can't be repealed or modified.
Starting over from scratch would work, but I hope you have lots of ammunition...
I meant his adult daughters. LOL
“Is it possible to re-interpret the head trauma created by a 56 grain .308 at 700 yards?”
I was not aware the .308 came in 56 grains; that is more of a .223.
Educated beyond the capacity to actually understand.
“Foster is a POS and the corrupt Illinois Supreme Court allowed the democrat state house majority, led by Madigan, to draw a district just for him after he lost (twice) to Randy Hultgren. Remember, gerrymandering is okay when democrats do it.”
That’s a fact.
Progressive Illinois Rep. Declares Constitution Means Nothing
___________________________________________________
Is what he’s saying really that controversial? Our elected (and unelected officials) can justify virtually anything they want.
Needs repeated:
What does “reinterpretation” mean? It means you take the same words in the Constitution, and apply a different meaning to them. If you can do that, the Constitution only means what you want it to mean, when you want it to mean it.
In which case, the Constitution means nothing. However, we all know that the Constitution does not mean nothing. It therefore follows, that this leftist approach to interpreting the Constitution is logically flawed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.