As I pointed out before, the revolutionaries who wrote the document could only see history, the present, and the future through their somewhat narrow perspectives of recent experiences,
And you see things only through the narrow lens of your present feelings. Everyone is limited to knowing the past and their own present, so what is your point? The framers were great students of history and government. Their debates concerned what they knew of republics and democracies, and what is required for them to survive. They left a mechanism for altering that document, the amending process.
My point about the third amendment is that, obviously, unlike the Ten Commandments or something, it was designed for a particular set of historical circumstances, not to be a timeless document.
You'll have to point out the part that says "This Amendment becomes null and void after xxxx years". I'm having trouble finding it. As far as I can see, it is still illegal for the government to quarter troops in your house.
Are you saying that decisions by our contemporary courts are unimportant?
Nice try. You need to read it again. I asked, since you like to cite Supreme Court decisions as being authoritative, whether you wish to stand by Dred Scott? Hmmm??
we will be stuck in sort of a colonial Williamsburg anarchy
Where did you get this idea? Williamsburg wasn't troubled with anarchy, in fact it was the capital of Virginia. I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?
Do you believe in the American system of checks and balances?
I do. Do you?
Are you saying that decisions by our contemporary courts are unimportant?
Oh, since we seem to be ruled by a judicial oligarchy answerable to no one, I could hardly call them unimportant. But I think they are often unConstitutional, as does Justice Scalia, among others.
While the NRA would like everyone to believe that their view of the right of individuals to own guns in an unregulated way has been accepted by the courts as the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, I don't believe it has,
Fortunately, we don't have to debate your beliefs. I don't belong to the NRA or read their material, so you'll have to save that debate for someone else. But I'll be glad to post the views of Justice Joseph Story regarding the 2nd Amendment. Story knew a bit about the subject having been a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845. Of course, he may be subject to Christine's Law of Obsolesence, just like those pesky rights that you object to.
I find particularly illogical your implication
Christine, since when do you have a problem with illogic? |
