Replies

The United States needs a new amendment governing gun rights, and the only amendment that would likely have any chance of being approved would be one that returns the Second Amendment to the position the Founders envisioned, when it only applied to federal law. This, coupled with clarifying language that makes it more difficult for federal authorities to restrict gun rights, would permit states to issue stricter gun bans, assuming their state constitutions allow it. But it would also ensure citizens in states where guns are valued—which, by the way, is most states—are guaranteed from ever having their gun rights taken from them by a Supreme Court controlled by left-wing justices.

This guy fell out of the boat and somehow missed the water. His premise is false. The Bill of Rights was to protect the inalienable rights of all citizens of the USA. The Supreme Court was established to rule on the constitutionality of all laws, including states laws, where it pertains to the liberties of citizens.

He is confusing the stature of state law over federal law, pertaining to the original intent of the Constitution, with the universal protection of inalienable rights.

“The Bill of Rights was to protect the inalienable rights of all citizens of the USA”

So, in your opinion, children born to two slaves in one of the States after 1789 were citizens of the United States even though they were not citizens of, say, Alabama, and they had inalienable rights the Constitution as amended was intended to protect?

Want to try again?

The Supreme Court was established to rule on the constitutionality of all laws, including states laws, where it pertains to the liberties of citizens.

Actually, the Supreme Court took that role on for itself in Marbury v Madison. If you read Article 3 of the Constitution you won’t find anything about the Supreme Court having that power. And, if it wished, Congress does have Constitutional power to limit what the SC can do.