Replies

So then you would agree that the gay marriage issue is properly a state issue?

I would. Unless and until an amendment to the Constitution is passed making this a federal matter, this is solely the province of the states to decide as they see fit.

So by your definition, every citizen has a right to an F-18 in their driveway? Or can the government enforce reasonable limitations?

"Provide for the common defense" is listed in the Consitution as being the role of the government.

How about free speech? Can the government enforce a law preventing someone from shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a free speech issue. If direct harm to persons or property is a foreseeable inevitable consequence, then it is properly the province of the government, as listed in the Constitution. Free speech doesn't enter into it. What limits would you put on free speech?

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Are you any more qualified than, say the USSC to decide for America what laws are constitutional and what aren't? That's what elections are for.

I guess you consider the Constitution to be one of those "living documents", then. Not me - I don't think Constitutionality is subject to popular vote.

Now you have me totally confused, since I agree completely with each of your examples. According to you, the government can place reasonable restrictions on rights to prevent harm from coming to innocent people. I will say that there are quite a few RKBA folks who will take you to task, but recognizing that the defense of our Nation is the purview of the government is certainly a reasonable position.

Free speech doesn't enter into it. What limits would you put on free speech?

Very few. And as with any other enumerated right, consistent with the responsibility of government to protect all of its citizens. But free speech does enter into it. The "purists" here on FR would say you cannot limit it in any way, but only punish if harm comes directly from it.

I guess you consider the Constitution to be one of those "living documents", then. Not me - I don't think Constitutionality is subject to popular vote.

Then we are in agreement. I'm not sure what your issue with me was to begin with. When issues of interpretation of the Constitution arise, the USSC is the body empowered by the Constitution to make the decisions. If we don't like their decision, we move to amend the Constitution, not just bellyache like so many here do.

So exactly where do we disagree?