Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 45Auto
The analysis of the last four words - shall not be infringed - are conspicuous by their absence

You gotta admit, it would have been somewhat awkward to have the Justice department acknowledging "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" at the same time the President was saying he would sign a bill extending the most significant federal infringement since the 1930s (other than the 1986 FOPA's last minute ban on newly manufactured machine guns for civilians perhaps)

24 posted on 12/17/2004 5:34:35 PM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato

True. Bush should realize that we put him back in office and that we value freedom over security. (or the illusion of security)


26 posted on 12/17/2004 5:37:39 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: El Gato
The analysis of the last four words - shall not be infringed - are conspicuous by their absence.

That is addressed by the cop-out at the end: "we do not address the scope of the right". Considering how many words were required to explain the two words "the people", it might be a while before they take on "shall not be infringed".

108 posted on 12/18/2004 5:52:48 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson