Posted on 02/18/2016 4:30:47 PM PST by Elderberry
Last week, author James Boice interviewed me for a Salon essay about what would happen if the Second Amendment is repealed. With Justice Scalia gone, the vitality of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is in doubt. Here are a handful of quotes from the article.
Besides, "if the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, very little would actually change right away. Chicago and D.C. might try to reinstitute their handgun ban, but virtually every state constitution carries a provision upholding the right to keep guns," says Josh Blackman, a constitutional law expert at the South Texas College of Law.
Repealists respond that they understand that, but right away is not what they have in mind. Repeal would allow Americans over the ensuing decades, or even century, to write the laws we want with regard to firearms. If we want to regulate them like we do cars, we would be able to.
But we have never repealed one of the Bill of Rights. Could we even do that? Shouldn't those be left alone?
Blackman says there is nothing sacrosanct about them--like any other amendment they are subject to Article V of the Constitution. If we want to repeal one, if the criteria is met, then repeal it we will. But he warns of a slippery slope:
"Once you repeal one Amendment, society normalizes the process of repealing another," he says. "It casts our constitutional liberties as transitory."
...
In fact, I could find no data or example in which repeal of one amendment led to a feeding frenzy upon others, and professor Blackman declined to provide me one. The argument of a slippery slope is an ideological one and not based in fact.
...
Blackman says that repealists would be better off attacking the problem through legislation. Wait for a future Supreme Court that thinks more like John Paul Stevensthan Scalia to overturn Heller. But after decades of seeing the NRA exploiting the indecipherability of the Second Amendment to thwart or neuter every potentially meaningful gun control measure, repealists are all out of faith that legislation can coexist with the provision as is.
Blackman brings up another potential problem: A repeal effort could backfire. Red states would retaliate by proposing an amendment strengthening the right to bear arms--for example, upholding the right of constitutional carry--which in our red meat climate could very well see more support than repeal would.
...
Though Josh Blackman sees repeal as a nonstarter today, he says the future of the effort relies on future Supreme Court decisions. "If the Court one day holds the right to bear arms includes outside the home, that would overturn significant precedent and make repeal much more valuable."
.
When life is easy, nothing changes very fast.
But Life is soon going to get “interesting.”
.
.
>> “Yes, you cannot repeal a right.” <<
This is the whole point.
The 2nd amendment didn’t create any right; it merely stated that the governments are required to completely respect the existing God given right.
.
Absolutely false:
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] The federal government possesses only the supreme authority accorded it by the Constitution. The scope of this authority is very broad, as the federal government is tasked with providing for the general welfare of the United States.
Research the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, period.
Consider the first word of the username, then assonance in the second word of the username with another word (only the vowel rhymes). Then, you may see more.
I suspect you are correct in your observation
That would be an interesting discussion. What steps are required to repeal the 2nd Amendment may be an even more interesting discussion.
The first step is to elect a Congress of which 2/3 agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Let's look at what Congress would be agreeing to repeal.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A careful reading illustrates that the existing individual right to own a firearm is protected from interference by the federal government.
The next step requires that 3/4 of the state legislatures agree with 2/3 of Congress. With those two steps achieved, the citizens' right to protection from government interference is gone but there are still additional steps before the citizens firearms can be seized.
The problem with Congress now taking the simple step of passing legislation prohibiting firearm ownership is that they do not have the constitutional power to enact that legislation.
That means that another amendment is required to give government the power to legislate the citizens, which once again requires that 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states agree to the legislation.
Assuming successful legislation passes now all the government has to do is to fund the confiscation of millions of privately owned firearms.
Compare the difficulty with building a wall on America's southern border with confiscating the citizens' firearms.
We don’t disagree, so I’m not sure why you are asking me the question.
Thanks.
The question I was responding to (to keep it short) is Article 1 (one) more important [because it's Article 1] (Federal or State Constitution{s}) than (pick your poison / article that makes you feel warm & fuzzy) say article 10 (ten) or say article 16 (sixteen)or say Article 33.
Sorry, but your mixing Apple's (States Constitution{s} Which are in fact inferior to) and Oranges (The Federal Constitution.)
You do the research, courts have consistently held that the mere placement of a "Article" does not make it more or less important then other "Article(s)."
Not to worry, there have been many arguments based on this, but to my knowledge, none successful.
Hate to pop your bubble, but in law; constitution(s) {State & Federal} are to be given equal station, i.e., one is not more superior / important, because of itâs place / location in said constitution(s).
That is patently false.
Are we mixed up on threads here or something?
Review the conversation on this thread, I think you got some wires crossed....it happens, no biggie.
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.