Reply With Quote
Which one do you think is absolute, derp?
Surprised a Chumpette hasn't posted on this after the nursing home patient said this.
Which one do you think is absolute, derp?
Pity thread.
Must be a low iq Gaburday night.
Spurtacular just reminding us that he has no bottom. What another sad thread.
How do you figure? This is what your fake president said.
Take a look at the 21st amendment.
You really think that's what the nursing home patient meant?
The point is that amendments are not absolute even if you look at it from multiple perspectives.
Your freedom of speech, for example, is not absolute. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater.
The point is you tried to shame me under a false pretense.
You shamed yourself.
You shamed yourself. And you got your kicked in for it.
That's not saying the first amendment isn't absolute. That's saying that is not counted as a matter of free speech.
And now you’re stealing my lines you’re so flustered.
Amendments aren’t absolute, so what’s the problem?
Do you even know the definition of absolute?
“free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way”
So, you think the writers of the Bill Of Rights and ratifiers thereof believed that the amendments were merely guidelines?
Is that what I wrote? They’re rights but they’re subject to limitations of all sorts and some or all could also be repealed. Hardly absolute….
another pre-folded derp thread
That's not what the definition of a right is. Rights are unalienable.
But rights are taken away all the time.
Explain how that happens, derp.
In practice, rights have limits and can even be denied. For example, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but laws can be made to stop you from keeping certain types of arms. And if you’re arrested, your right to bear arms can also be suspended. You can’t have your gun in your jail cell.
He doesn’t know the difference between natural rights and legal rights, so don’t expect too much from him.
Depends on what "Absolute" means in this context.
If it supposed to mean "beyond regulation" the answer is no, and that applies to more than just cons utional amendments. After all, we have number of exceptions for cons utional rights, including perhaps the most sacred one, free speech.
It doesn't matter one iota what they believed. We're not in 1791 anymore. That's why a Judiciary branch was created, to adjudicate those issues as a matter of law, and has done so, etching exceptions to those rights over time.
The SCOTUS specifically, which normally ends up deciding these cases, does have a "heightened standard" when it comes to Cons utional rights, thus why it hasn't created many exceptions, but they exist, and thus it makes those rights not absolute.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
