Bill Maher: ‘The Second Amendment is bleep'

I believe in everyone's right to free speech... even ignorant speech... and I do not as a rule condone violence. But when it comes to Bill Maher and his insipid anti-American propaganda, I believe his inability to think rationally stems from the excessive pressure being placed on his brain by the unusually massive root-system required to support that sagging beachball he calls a "nose."

He needs to have his head ventilated... you know, to relieve all that dangerous pressure.

;^)

If the Founding Fathers did not define rights, then why is it called the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights serves to protect the natural rights of Liberty and Property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms by limiting the power of the Gov’t.

I guess what I am trying to reconcile is, that right now, on one hand, because of the Bill of Rights, the Congress does not have the power to infringe/amend/eliminate, etc., any of those rights, like they are trying to do in the Senate/House right now. But with the Congress and enough States the Bill of Rights can be infringed/amended/eliminated, etc.

It seems to me the Founding Fathers contradicted themselves by not allowing the Congress, alone, to change them but the Congress and enough States to do so.

If the Founding Fathers did not define rights, then why is it called the Bill of Rights?

Sorry, Ez2BRepub, but using a word doesn't define it.

It seems to me the Founding Fathers contradicted themselves by not allowing the Congress, alone, to change them but the Congress and enough States to do so.

There's the problem! Congress claims it's merely so-called "interpreting" our rights, whereas in fact, it's radically altering them, which does, indeed, require constitutional amendments.

In my admittedly slightly less than humble opinion, we need to fire Congress en masse, send new people to Washington, D.C. to represent rather than rule us, and make it abundantly clear we expect short term limits.

I didn't say I believe any of that's actually going to happen: merely what we, the people ought to do.

Understand, I have a scientific mind and anything I say is not meant to trash anyone, or cause a fight, I just had a question about the Founders and why they set up an amendment process, when they are supposed to be rights and not changeable. I would like to have other people join the conversation to help clarify, if possible, what I had a problem reconciling, concerning the Founders, rights and the amendment process.

The first part of what you said makes no sense. Using a word does not define it?

The definition of “define” is to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.).

The Founding Fathers used the word “rights” in the Bill of Rights, they did not say, The Bill of Needs, The Bill of Gov’t Control, etc.

They were clearly defining the meaning.

In the second part of your response, I am not sure if you are agreeing with me that the Founders contradicted themselves.

You are saying that Congress is altering the Bill of Rights, when they do not have the power to do so but can do so, through an amendment process.

Does that not show that the Founders contradicted themselves, as I said before?

Keep in mind that the Constitution is a contract and as a legal instrument, unique in all the history of the world. The Founders recognized that human beings are frail and fallible people, subject to every sin listed in the Ten Commandments.

Looking at history and the contemporary politics of their day they knew that it was wholly normal for government to be corrupted, because the people are corrupted. How do you stop or limit this corruption? Competing interests or power bases.

Hence, they split the federal powers into three with the presumption that the executive would be very limited and weak. The set up the Presidency (executive) to be fairly weak and most certainly weaker than any king of their age. Most of the power would be in the legislature - a House of Representatives (close to the people and subject to the whim and emotion of the crowd) elected every two years and a Senate (close to the states and more aristocratic in that they were appointed by state governments which historicallyy represent the aristocratic and monied interest of a state) elected every six years and more insulated from the people.

They designed a natural tension not only between the three branches of the federal government, but also between the states themselves and the federal government. Each tension in the system defending against encroachments by the others on their power and authority. The Founders expected treachery and designed for it.

The Amendment process is a major part of that design. Certainly, they knew that history isn’t kind to liberty. Liberty mostly fails. It’s one thing to know you have God-given rights, it’s another to get to exercise them. So, at some time in the future there would be those who would convince a majority of the people that we didn’t need or want this or that right.

By having the Constitution (contract) state how it could be amended the process of the destruction of our God-given rights could be slowed and perhaps undone over the deliberations on amendments. The Founders knew it was the Devil’s world.

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.