Yes, of course. It would be constitutional. However, it would also be my right to revolt but its still constitutional.
I think you don't understand the meaning of the word.
No. It wouldn't be. If it was listed that such a thing could be done by government, expressly IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, then it would be Constitutional. That is why there is an Amendment process. Mere passage of a bill into law is NOT rising to the standard of Constitutional Amendment.
Get a grip...
Also, some of you REALLY need to crack a Websters and look up the difference between "infringed", and "regulated".
VRWC: Yes, of course. It would be constitutional.
Really? Please cite the article, section, and clause of the United States Constitution that would authorize the government to execute all left-handed Americans. And please be specific: my wife is left-handed, and so is one of my best friends. I have a personal interest in the question.
;>)
However, it would also be my right to revolt but its still constitutional.
I think you don't understand the meaning of the word.
Actually, it is you, my friend, who have no idea what you are talking about. You confuse judicial opinion with 'constitutionality,' and assume that the opinion of nine political appointees can somehow substitute for a written constitution. As Mr. Justice Scalia observed:
"The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up."
Remarks at The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C., Oct. 18, 1996
Almost two centuries ago, a Jeffersonian republican asked a simple question:
Is the Constitution supreme over the court, or the court supreme over the Constitution?
What say you?
;>)
By the way, Mr. Justice Scalia also noted on the same occasion:
"People who adopt a bill of rights know that societies not only evolve, they also rot."
When people can't tell the difference between written constitutional law and obviously contradictory judicial opinion, the rot appears to be well under way...
;>)
So in your view, only government officials need read the Constitution. The Bill of Rights isn't so much a list of things guaranteed to the people and granted by the Creator, as it is some suggestions to the government as to how they should act. Suggestions which may be disregarded at anytime, assuming the government says so.