reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179373
I sure hope you meant "were" not "weren't" etched in stone. Because, otherwise, I'm not at all sure I follow you here??? Are you saying the conservative ideology believes the document to be static and timeless? Sorta agreed on the first sentence. The second sentence has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Both dogmas have usurped the 10th on a Federal level when it suits them to do so.
See my upthread examples.
I believe it is etched in stone and that is why the provision to amend it was included, That doesn't mean you don't occasionally need to add a new line to it and in some instances use that new line to void a previous provision but it takes a strong majority of both elected officials and voting citizens to allow that to happen. The second amendment is a good example of this. If you read the writings of those who wrote and voted for the amendment there were several reasons why they guranteed the right to gun ownership but lets assume it were only to provide a militia. That was still only the stated reason for granting the right to keep and bare arms. If you were to allow a court to say that because there is no longer a militia the right to keep and bare is no longer needed thus removed you would also give them the right to do the same with any other provision in the document.
http:///forum/post/3179373
I sure hope you meant "were" not "weren't" etched in stone. Because, otherwise, I'm not at all sure I follow you here??? Are you saying the conservative ideology believes the document to be static and timeless? Sorta agreed on the first sentence. The second sentence has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Both dogmas have usurped the 10th on a Federal level when it suits them to do so.
See my upthread examples.
I believe it is etched in stone and that is why the provision to amend it was included, That doesn't mean you don't occasionally need to add a new line to it and in some instances use that new line to void a previous provision but it takes a strong majority of both elected officials and voting citizens to allow that to happen. The second amendment is a good example of this. If you read the writings of those who wrote and voted for the amendment there were several reasons why they guranteed the right to gun ownership but lets assume it were only to provide a militia. That was still only the stated reason for granting the right to keep and bare arms. If you were to allow a court to say that because there is no longer a militia the right to keep and bare is no longer needed thus removed you would also give them the right to do the same with any other provision in the document.