Florida Senator Bill Nelson thinks the NRA is missing the point of the Second Amendment and the Constitution. When asked by Thomas Roberts if “gun rights and gun control can live in the same environment” and do they have to be “mutually exclusive”, he devolved into the faulty left-wing argument that the Constitution can be manipulated to the times.
Nelson said, “Of course there’s a way that both can live. And that is common sense. For example, we have a right of free speech. but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. So, too, in second amendment rights, and I grew up on a ranch. I’ve had guns all my life. I hunt all my life. but there’s no sense in if i were on the no-fly list, if I can’t get on an airplane because they suspect me of being a terrorist, why in the world should I be able to buy a gun? So there are limits and that is what the Constitution is. It’s a living, breathing document that shifts with the times and the new technologies, and that’s what the NRA is missing.”
What Nelson is missing is the part about needing a constitutional amendment to alter the Constitution or three-fourths of the states and we can thank decades of bad education for that. It might also have something to do with statists not knowing their limits.
Government does not have the right to deprive a citizen of his/her constitutional – natural – rights because of suspicions.
The NRA isn’t missing anything. Senator Nelson is missing the part about the rule of law. The Constitution is a living document in that it can be changed by a constitutional amendment, not by unconstitutional laws.
Why wouldn’t Nelson think what he thinks. Barack Obama changes the laws of the land with executive orders and memorandums and there’s little or no opposition.
Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . .” States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law.
Nelson wants to violate people’s Due Process rights and promote a law in which the AG – the government – decides who can keep their guns.
The Constitution “is not”, in the words of the late Justice Scalia, “a living organism.”
“The Constitution is not a living organism,” he said. “It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
But an originalist interpretation still provides for a flexible legal system, he said.
“You want the death penalty? Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You think it’s a bad idea? Persuade them the other way and repeal it. And you can change your mind. If you repeal it and find there are a lot more murders, you can put it back in,” he argued. “That’s flexibility.”
Judges today are legislating from the bench and that is the type of justice Hillary Clinton will appoint. Trump’s choices of justices for the Supreme Court will be originalists who will adhere to the rule of law, not political expediency and ambition.
There are two prevailing ideas that bolster this idea that the Constitution is living and breathing. One is that the constitution has “deeper meanings (that spring out from it) beyond its words, and the other is that the constitution changes as society changes.
That’s antithetical to the meaning of the rule of law.
The first reference suggest that it’s truth is in the eye of the beholder but the letter of the law does not change with subjective opinion. The Constitution does not hold implications, and opinions do not change what the Constitution says. It is what it says.
James Madison, when speaking to Congress on the Constitution, made it clear that the document was one of expressed powers, and only those powers, for the government, and that the document is explicit (not implicit) in it’s wording.
It is false to say that the words change. To say we can change what we infer about the Constitution and not based on the words and not based on the Constitution, but on society’s positions, is antithetical to the very idea of the Constitution and a Republic.
“The Federalist Papers”, written by the Federalist Founding Fathers under the pseudonym Publeus, explained and defended the Constitution at length. They wrote in numerous articles that the purpose of our Constitution was to assure a government that guarantees equal rights to self government to it’s citizens. It can only do this if it is not subject to the whims of a tyrannous minority (the factitous minority) and can NOT take away any individual citizens Natural Right to self government (liberty, life, fruits of liberty, etc).
The Constitution was to be developed to avoid false-interpretation violating the rule of law. It is the Constitution that is the final arbiter on policy decisions, not government.
More dangerous would be the tyrannical majority.
The majority would not be able to determine what can be passed or not passed, but instead the Constitution would determine what the majority can pass or not pass.
This is the very idea of The United States of America.
None of the gun bills passed this evening fortunately. One of the gun bills would have given the government the right to decide who gets to buy a gun if they are “suspected” of terrorism. They would have their constitutional rights suspended.
Unfortunately, also today, the Supreme Court refused to consider the oppressive New York and Connecticut gun bills which include a ban on so-called assault rifles, many of which are ordinary rifles. It’s an open invitation for other states to ban certain types of guns. These suffocating laws won’t do a thing about terrorists or criminals bringing these guns or similar guns to their criminal events.
We must keep fighting for our natural rights. Let the statists win.