Constitutional Amendments and the revocation of rights

[26 Inf]

As AK doug said, it depends on whether you believe rights are granted by government or inherent to being human, that is, God given or "natural rights."

The idea that Government can grant or remove fundamental rights as it pleases (even through a democratic process) is about as opposed to the concept of Liberty as you can get.

I agree, but...the question was not regarding ethical, moral or philosophical concerns, rather legality.

That it is possible for Amendments to be repealed and, therefore, modified is irrefutable truth.

As I mentioned, whether one would want to live in a country that stripped away God given liberties is another question.

Our Nation was formed with the intent that the will of the people would prevail. If we ever got so screwed up that the overwhelming majority (2/3's) of the population wanted to give up our Essential Liberties, it is probably time to leave.

[THCDDM4]

I agree, but...the question was not regarding ethical, moral or philosophical concerns, rather legality.

That it is possible for Amendments to be repealed and, therefore, modified is irrefutable truth.

As I mentioned, whether one would want to live in a country that stripped away God given liberties is another question.

Our Nation was formed with the intent that the will of the people would prevail. If we ever got so screwed up that the overwhelming majority (2/3's) of the population wanted to give up our Essential Liberties, it is probably time to leave.

Absolutely not. The legal framework and construct of "rights" is broken down into categories:

In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law or nature.

Each legal right that an individual possesses relates to a corresponding legal duty imposed on another, for example-

In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political.

Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on his personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.

Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

Rights are more important and more sacred than most would believe or assert. Legal constructs exist to protect them, but again- they mean nothing without the actions/force of man.

If you truly understand the intent and meaning of the Constitution, the BOR, the federalist papers, Washingtons farewell address; and let me put this into simple words- the very fabric of our being and everything this country was founded upon- Rights are undeniable. Unchangeable. Unquestionable. They are quite simply upheld or destroyed by the will and actions of each of us as individuals.

They are not malleable. They are absolutely resolute.

[SteyrAUG]

Yet we're all to happy to abide by the 20K firearms laws in this country.

First we're not happy. Second we aren't simply abiding and doing nothing. Third you try and use a process before you start shooting, it's not time to start shooting yet. We also are dealing with many first amendment issues and the same rules apply. For example some people want the 10 commandments to be the law of the land, others don't want religion applied to their lives in any way, shape or form at all. It's hard to make everyone happy.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Uh yeah the Constitution does not give me rights, I already had those. It limits the elected officials from ****ing with them.

"Any gun law is unconstitutional."

[Bulletdog]

First we're not happy. Second we aren't simply abiding and doing nothing. Third you try and use a process before you start shooting, it's not time to start shooting yet. We also are dealing with many first amendment issues and the same rules apply. For example some people want the 10 commandments to be the law of the land, others don't want religion applied to their lives in any way, shape or form at all. It's hard to make everyone happy.

Uh yeah the Constitution does not give me rights, I already had those. It limits the elected officials from ****ing with them.

"Any gun law is unconstitutional."

Thank you both. Saved me a bunch of typing.

[tb-av]

Third you try and use a process before you start shooting, it's not time to start shooting yet.

Yet... yet I sit and wonder, what will be the nature and gravity of the first shots fired in these days.

Can it actually happen in this reality we live in now? I could see that if some politician got some sweeping laws passed they could get themselves shot... which would probably result in the laws being increased. I just can't see how, when we are nickel and dimed out of our rights, an actual war with traditional weapons would or could take place. This isn't Colonial America.

We can't win at the ballot box and we can't go around shooting people. What process are we supposed to use to protect our rights when we are individuals by nature and out numbered?

I mean I don't expect an answer, I just ponder this dilemma and wonder what if things keep getting worse? People are already trying to kill politicians and the politicians are trying to destroy one another... especially BLUE on RED.

[ABNAK]

Something that may be "legal" may not be right. Something that may be right may not be "legal". This statement only applies in a limited number of scenarios but it does exist.

[LMT Shooter]

Absolutely not. The legal framework and construct of "rights" is broken down into categories:

In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law or nature.

Each legal right that an individual possesses relates to a corresponding legal duty imposed on another, for example-

In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political.

Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on his personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.

Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

Rights are more important and more sacred than most would believe or assert. Legal constructs exist to protect them, but again- they mean nothing without the actions/force of man.

If you truly understand the intent and meaning of the Constitution, the BOR, the federalist papers, Washingtons farewell address; and let me put this into simple words- the very fabric of our being and everything this country was founded upon- Rights are undeniable. Unchangeable. Unquestionable. They are quite simply upheld or destroyed by the will and actions of each of us as individuals.

They are not malleable. They are absolutely resolute.

You left out the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

A God-given natural right cannot be taken away by government. The government can only take away those rights which it has given to you, your Constitutional rights.

Can an amendment be adopted that says we no longer have a God-given natural right? Yes, but that doesn't mean that we must abide by it. That's what the Second Amendment is about.

[SteyrAUG]

Yet... yet I sit and wonder, what will be the nature and gravity of the first shots fired in these days.

Too many factors make it impossible to accurately contemplate. So many things would have to be taken into consideration. Most sane people would try and sit on the sidelines and ride it out so they don't lose family members, property or possessions. So as soon is it becomes real for X number of people then Y is going to happen.

Everyone will try and duck and cover, but as soon as your kids get killed, your house burns down or they are literally rolling tanks down your block then rules change. Imagine LA riots in every major city but county wide all at once. Some people will loot, some people will stand on the roof of their buildings and shoot looters.

Hope it never comes to that, cause it would be really ugly. Even people who have seen and done war understand while they could get killed, it's happening over there and their families are back home where things are safe. If the same exact thing flares up in our major cities it will be unlike anything anyone alive here has ever seen.

[duece71]

Tagged for interest.
What about EOs? How about a super majority? Any impact on the pace of Amendment change or elimination by these two?