Reply With Quote
The right to vote
As you notice, I qualified my statement with 'in practice', which is absolutely correct. The right exists, but without a government en y to protect the right through law, it's all theoretical.
The right to vote
There's no cons utional right to vote.
"The individual citizen has no federal cons utional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Cons ution. Id., at 28—33"
Bush v Gore
They also required every able bodied free man to own a "military style" gun. You conveniently forgot that one.
^Also, the BoR is the first 10 Amendments.
But that's also regulation. And that's the point. To say that the Cons ution prohibits regulation of firearms is textually infirm and historically not captured by notions of originalism.
We can delve into the philosophical moorings of Cons utional rights, but in point of fact, our social compact has for centuries accepted regulation of all of our rights to some degree or another.
Please reread --that's what I meant by mandated possession.
No, it's contradictory. The two statements directly contradict one another. One implies there are no rights without protection. The other says that is not implied. "in practice" is just another word for "in reality". Your second statement doesn't mention practice or theory.
At this point, your argument has devolved into semantics. As has been pointed out by me and others, your original argument, that your second amendment rights is absolute and unfettered by regulation, has been totally discredited.
You're saying rights don't exist unless someone is there to enforce them. You're also saying the BoR granted rights. Both statements are wrong. It's not an argument on semantics. You made two statements that contradict each other. Which position would you like to abandon?
Also, show me in the BoR where the right to vote is spelled out.
Meh. Not interested. You've skipped over about 19 posts of various individuls dismantling your original argument to focus in on whether the BoR grants rights and whether rights exist absent an enforcing en y. It's obvious you have no intention of defending your original argument.
So now you want to abandon the "right to vote" argument? Why are you arguing about the BoR when you don't even know what's contained within?
When you're defeated you pretend you're tired of arguing.
I haven't skipped over anything. El is the only one I haven't responded to and that's because he states he was referring to something entirely different than I was commenting on. I don't agree with some of the statements he made but that discussion is already taking place here.
Yep. Abandoning the right to vote argument as it wasn't really mine. I was simply answering your question on behalf of Spuminator, as that's what I thought he was referencing.
You've also ignored salient points from WH and FWD on the subject of gun control.
Neither of those posters were talking to me. Neither quoted me.
So why would I respond? They weren't making a counterpoint against something I claimed. The argument doesn't need to have parallel conversations.
Please highlight the 19 posts I have ignored.
They absolutely made counterpoints to something you claimed.
It's cool though. It's election season so your rooting around in the political forum looking to argue.
Have fun.
So you came along, flung a few common misconceptions about the BoR like you typically do and when I showed you you were wrong, you once again play the "not worth my time" card.
I'm still waiting for those 19 posts. Or are you going to abandon that claim as well?
Yep. I'll abandon this as well.
That's one interpretation that probably wouldn't have held up twenty years before, or twenty years after. It's also not really the point of the argument, so if it makes you feel better I'll withdraw it.
There are real-life conditions on every right in the Bill of Rights, and it's not unreasonable to have registration of firearms as a condition to 2nd Amendment rights.
It has nothing to do with how I feel. If the states have power over deciding whether to even hold a public election, that means voting isn't a right. The non-BoR amendments that pertain to voting are negative pregnant statements. They simply say that a person cannot be denied because of X. It doesn't say they cannot be denied because of Y.
It will hold up. It's USSC case law.
The second part of your statement was a non sequitur.
If a state decided to select its electors without a public vote, they would likely lose the case to the USSC at almost any point in this nation's recent history. The opinion you quoted likely would have been the dissent under a Rehnquist, Warren, and the likely future court. That court would also likely permit a federal gun registry. That's how the Judiciary go.
They wouldn't need the approval of the USSC to exercise their cons utional powers. They wouldn't be popular with the folks, but they have that right. You could argue any USSC case would be different under different judges. What's the point? It is what it is. The USSC decision didn't create the state's voting rights.
How is it a non-sequitur? Because you've decided to limit yourself to the narrow issue of enshrining the franchise as a cons utional right vel non?
That statement is certainly not false. Aside from perhaps the Third Amendment, we live in a society where we've accepted that every right addressed by the Bill of Rights is subject to limitation in some manner, precisely as Spurminator suggested.
Because there are indeed real life conditions on every right doesn't mean the gun registry idea isn't unreasonable. In fact it does nothing to even support the notion.
There are already limitations on gun ownership. Pretending a gun registry is bringing the 2nd Amendment in line with other rights is misleading.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions