[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
For example, if the majority of people decide cars shouldn’t be driven at over seventy miles an hour, then all of us have to comply with that. We can’t argue that, as an individual, we have the right to drive as fast as we want.
[/QUOTE]
Similarly, there are many regulations on both speech and, more to the point, on gun and gun ownership which means…
…that this is totally incorrect on several levels. First, having something be a Constitutional right by no means means the government can’t regulate aspects of it. Secondly, if in fact a majority of Americans exists (and is willing to vote on the issue), Amendments can and have been changed or even tossed out. In the mean time, however, having something be a protected right means that it’s more difficult to simply ban whatever is being protected across the board, or at least it makes it difficult for a small group of people (like, oh, say the anti-gun folks who DO want to ban all guns in the US) to do so without a lot of effort (well, unless they use the courts to try and do an end around the system and basically interpret the right out of existence, or abridge it at least). That’s the whole point of having constitutional rights…to make it more difficult for the government or private groups to abridge them. But that doesn’t make them sacrosanct by any means, as is pretty clearly evident if you look at the Constitutional rights and the regulations and laws that that have emerged to put them in real world terms.
That’s not my argument at all…and it’s not how Constitutional rights work, either in theory or, more importantly, in practice. Nor is it how they are supposed to work, or what they are for.
As for the last part, it’s an exception in the same way as speech, or freedom of religion or assembly are exceptions…they are basic rights that a large percentage of Americans THINK need to be protected…and, clearly they do since they have all been attacked at various times by various groups who don’t feel the same way.
The US Constitution should only restrain the federal government. If the people of Illinois want to outlaw guns or start a database, I would oppose that on the state level, but I would not support the US government exerting power on those people.
And if the people of Illinois want to curtail or revoke free speech? What if they want to permit slavery, or ban lawful assembly? Those should be up to them as well?? :eek:
Yes. I’m not familiar with the Illinois constitution, but I’d wager those would be considered unconstitutional, so your hypotheticals are a bit off. This is 2013, not 1861. Mobility is no longer an issue.
In your OP scenario, we are writing a new national constitution. When you write a constitution you are outlining the powers and restraints of a government. The state constitutions already exist. Those powers and restraints have already been established.
If this were true, then the Bill of Rights would be a meaningless document. It would only guarantee the rights of the handful of Americans who reside in the District of Columbia or other areas outside of any state. What would be the point of the Constitution claiming that American citizens in general have a right to free speech, for example, if any state could overrule the Constitution and take away that right?
It’s not possible for every right to have equal value at all times. There are constantly going to be situations where the exercise of two different rights are in conflict and we have to decide which of them has precedence in that situation.
Exactly. I can’t believe that someone thinks it’s a good idea to allow states to make their own decisions wrt Constitional rights, and whether or not they should honor them. :eek:
Let’s not quibble on semantics. Can we agree that making something a Constitutional right has an effect? That things like gun ownership, by virtue of being Constitutional rights, have a status different than what other things, like television ownership, have?
You wouldn’t say that American citizens in general have a right to free speech. You would say that the US government cannot encroach on free speech. You would also say that every state government cannot encroach on free speech because it says so in their respective constitutions. Is brevity your key value? Mine is keeping as much power with the people as possible.
I really hope this is sarcasm. You realize “the states” are not inherently evil because Abe Lincoln told you so. The citizens of each state should vote to say what powers they want their state government to have. You believe the citizens of the US should all get to say what powers the Illinois govt has.
What is so magical about the union that the voters of each state elect monsters to the state govt and benevolent stewards of wisdom and clarity to the fed govt?
In other words is the United States the perfect size for ensuring liberty for all?
This is 2013, not 1861. Mobility is more an issue now than ever before in human history.