All the Constitution describes is the method by which laws are created, not their limits. The only limits defined are those in the amendments, which can themselves be amended.
The government has full right to remove the Freedom of Speech if it can pass an amendment revoking the 1st Amendment. This is true of every other right. So in a more real-world accurate sense, the limits of government are the limits of society as popularly represented.
But it is much closer to it than what ever is in second place.
So the 2nd amendment, written in 1789, could “easily” be interpreted to refer to the National Guard, an institution not created until after 1900?
I didn’t call Der Trihs on this because he did say “can” be interpreted that way, and obviously people have. We’ve debated the whole “well-regulated militia” thing endlessly, and it comes down to whether you choose to use that definition or not. If anyone is interested, I can explain why I don’t subscribe to the “collectivist” theory of the 2nd, but I didn’t see any point in hijacking this thread.
What is the difference, exactly?
I agree also that anarchy is not the same as well-regulated liberty. Regulation is the balance between prohibition and anarchy.
The question is not “what are the laws?” The question is “how are they construed?” Is the inalienable and self-retained right of people to keep and bear light arms being infringed by onerous over-regulation?
Being necessary to the security of a free City, are patriot volunteers trained and licensed and well-regulated to safely secure peace and happiness even within their own free home and land?
Some states risk stand against federal laws construed to deny and disparage the inalienable and self-retained right of liberty equally for all. Yet as best I can tell and in just so many words, the government of Chicago claims the right to disparage even a federally recognized self-retained right. Chicago is not a federal city.
power is not the same as right
Does government have the right to construe law to deny or disparage or infringe the inalienable and self-retained right of liberty?
Are governments instituted to secure the rights of liberty and justice equally for all?
peace through liberty
rwjefferson
I don’t think I said anything about that, but okay.
Wrong. If we’re going to debate a law, we have to know what the law is. Lumpy’s summary helps. It does sound like handguns are more or less banned in Chicago, which is similar to how things are in New York City, although the details are probably different.
As always, I think, the question is what “well regulated” means and what “infringed” means. If you think all gun regulation is an unconstitutional infringement, this is definitely infringement. It’s strict by any standard.
What? I don’t think I understand anything you say from here on down.
Tyranny is prohibition and anarchy. Tyranny is marked as not even in the same league as enlightened democracy.
Democracy is not just equal in vote. Democracy is also equal in right of well-regulated pursuit of peace and happiness. I admit and understand the word ‘democracy’ can be construed to deny and disparage the self retained right of liberty. Unjust governments do it all the time.
The spirit of liberty and justice and equality for all does not change because Word and Law are construed to deny or disparage or infringe the inalienable and self retained right of well regulated peaceful pursuits. Denial of liberty is tyranny and prohibition and anarchy and strife.
Do governments have the right to construe law to deny or disparage liberty?
Are governments instituted to secure these inalienable rights for all?
Still I am compelled to ask please now answer my questions. Your objections are duly noted.
Please cite and explain the Article of Constitution that gives government the right to prohibit.
Please cite and explain the Amendment that gives government the right to construe Law to deny or disparage the self-retained and inalienable right of well regulated peaceful pursuits.
peace
rwjefferson
many will hear; few will understand
Yes. Governments are instituted to restrict liberty. The freedom to sell adulterated food is restricted by government. The freedom to defraud the consumer is restricted by government. The freedom to abuse employees is restricted by government. One man’s liberty is another man’s tyranny.**
No. Governments are instituted to secure the weak from the strong.
By whom are such peaceful pursuits “well regulated”?
The Constitution protects two kinds of rights. The easy ones are the enumerated ones: the ones that are specifically described in the text (and these include the right to bear arms). The difficult ones are the unenumerated rights. The Constitution says unenumerated rights exist (in the Ninth Amendment) but obviously doesn’t say what they are (if it did they would be enumerated rights).
The Constitution does not list any specific right of self-protection of health or property. So the issue is whether or not such a right is one of the unenumerated rights. And that’s an open question for the courts to decide.
No, the Constitution grants citizens all rigths not forbade by law.
The Declaration of Independence sums up the natural rights view in just a few sentences. Even though it has no official legal status in our current Constitution, and even though it’s words have been imperfectly applied (or in the case of African slavery, hypocritically ignored), it’s still the best statement of fundamental political philosophy available from the Founders:
In other words, people have rights, but since your “rights” would be pretty meaningless if you had no way to exercise them- if for example you were living in a state of lawless savagery, where you were in constant danger of being killed, enslaved or tortured- then people establish governments and the rule of law to be able to actualize their rights.
In the Hobbesian view, the first right on which all others depend- life- takes precedence over all other considerations, and governments are entitled to do nearly anything in the name of preserving safety and order. Yet short of a crisis situation in which survival itself is at stake, the question then becomes what about the other rights?
So we want the government to keep us safe, yes. But then to the maximum possible extent consistent with safety, we want to be free. And then, to the maximum possible extent consistent with freedom, we want to “pursue happiness”; etc.
So how do we accomplish this? The answer the Framers came up with was “democracy”, and has the following basic principles:[ol][li]A written Constitution declares the outlines of the government, and especially its limitations (not just the Amendments called the Bill or Rights, but several provisions banning abusive practices, such as ex post facto laws)The government was to be “republican”- that is, based on popular elections, representatives would be chosen to debate and vote on laws. The representatives were answerable to their constituants, and would be replaced in the next election if they failed to keep a mandate.[/ol]In general, our government strives to “promote the general welfare” as best it can, with the general principle that the most critical rights (life, liberty) be preserved by measures that will have the least impact on less immediate rights. [/li]
So how did this work out in practice? Sloppily, as might be expected of almost any major human endeavour. There’s the never-ending question of the “tyranny of the majority”, there’s conflict between regional autonomy and national interest, there’s endless debate over just what measures are really necessary to preserve “life” at the possible expense of “liberty”, “liberty” at the expense of “pursuit of happiness”, etc.
So far at least, no better way of doing things has been devised. Since the Eighteenth century, the only major alternative political philosophy proposed has been various brands of Socialism (democratic, communist, fascist, etc.) and their track record has not been encouraging.
Which can be appropriated by the creation of relevant laws.
Does anyone know if any SC cases have ever addressed the subject of libertarianism- i.e., the claim that government should have no authority except a small number of explicitly delegated powers deemed absolutely necessary? Has anyone tried to claim that the “right to privacy” means a broad immunity from government interference? The Federal government is (theoretically) limited to explicit or necessary powers by the terms of the Constitution, and civil rights interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment have imposed restrictions upon the states, but has anyone challenged the authority of legislatures to enact laws against almost anything?
Based on what, the Tenth Amendment? Bullshit.
Governments and other created entities have powers and authorities. They have no rights.
The “Bill of Rights” is not a bill of rights, it’s a series of authorities explicitly denied. It’s a list of what the government shall not do, not a list of what the people may.
Just out of curiosity, what is your native language?
When I lived in Washington DC, they had the most rigid gun laws in the country. I saw more handguns in public in that city than I have ever seen anywhere else. Including one instance where I saw 10+ (in addition to a pump-shotgun held by the bartender) in a pimp bar scene that luckily didn’t turn violent. I purchased a 9MM Hechler and Koch squeeze-cock that I would carry when going into many parts of town. Just having it came in handy a few times.
When I moved to Wisconsin, with more liberal gun laws, I no longer felt a need to carry and sold the handgun and purchased fishing rods and tackle.
The same limits to keeping arms as there are to free speech already exist.
You can yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, there just has to be a fire.
And while people have the right to keep and bare arms, they are prohibited by law aiming their arms at an innocent people.
But, just as there are times that it is permissible to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, there also are times it is permissible to aim a firearm at a person.