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

To: epow
I think I understand the other side on this one, they read the constitution this way:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state some kind of historical curiosity, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But you would think they need to go through some sort of legal process to do this editing, right? Like, say, a constitutional amendment? If judges can just interpret this thing into nonexistence, then we don't really have a constitution, we just have a status quo opinion. This is the biggest reason, I think, why we need to keep the Senate.

11 posted on 10/29/2006 1:35:47 PM PST by FreePoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: FreePoster
If judges can just interpret this thing into nonexistence, then we don't really have a constitution, we just have a status quo opinion.

Exactly. Which is what the liberals want, a vague, imprecise, generic constitution that can be broadly interpreted to mean whatever a liberal judiciary thinks it should mean. Such a constitution wouldn't be worth the parchment it's written on, and it certainly isn't what the authors created.

12 posted on 10/29/2006 2:46:39 PM PST by epow ("A strong man ARMED keepeth his palace, and his goods are in peace",,,Jesus Christ, ca 30 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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