So the constitution doesn't really have inherent value, it matters only when it supports your position?

Conservatism is in large part about not giving the government more and more power over everything but this idea if interpreting away a constitutional right does just that, gives government the power to skip over the proper way of changing the constitution.

SWOOOOOSSHHHHHHH.

Doesn't matter, the text remains. We can argue original intent and purpose all day long but if the text says something is legal/illegal then it is so.

Applying original intent/purpose is often more subjective in nature due to the fact that of how laws and amendments are made. If 10 senators penned the bill they may have 10 different reasons for their thought process, which one is the right one? What remains above all is the text of the amendment. The second amendment is strong because the text is strong (relatively), going with originalism and interpretation just creates weak points for anti-2a activists to attack.

If you can justify it this easily then you have no grounds to complain when democrats do the same.

The 2A isn't "strong". Another poor example used.

So the constitution doesn't really have inherent value, it matters only when it supports your position?

Conservatism is in large part about not giving the government more and more power over everything but this idea if interpreting away a constitutional right does just that, gives government the power to skip over the proper way of changing the constitution.

Try again, Straw Boy.

"interpreting away a constitutional right "

Tell me more about the second amendment and how it took the Heller decision to properly apply the right to keep and bear arms to all the people and not just for those in a militia.

For anyone keeping score at home, the Heller decision was in 2008.  Do the math!

Try again, Straw Boy.

"interpreting away a constitutional right "

Tell me more about the second amendment and how it took the Heller decision to properly apply the right to keep and bear arms to all the people and just for those in a militia.

For anyone keeping score at home, the Heller decision was in 2008.  Do the math!

The courts failure to uphold the constitution doesn't justify ignoring the constitution. If you aren't going to do it the right way then you don't respect the constitution or what it stands for and that's not even covering the short sightedness that doing it this way just snowballs the problem because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power.

The courts failure to uphold the constitution doesn't justify ignoring the constitution. If you aren't going to do it the right way then you don't respect the constitution or what it stands for and that's not even covering the short sightedness that doing it this way just snowballs the problem because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power.

Show me where anyone said "We should ignore the constitution," Straw Boy.

You don't know what the right way to amend the constitution is, because you're not a constitutional scholar.  The process is defined in the constitution, but the mechanics are a bit more involved.

And you're a fool to throw out the "because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power," argument, because that's not how an amendment is created and passed.

Do some research, then come back and explain how everything you said in this post is wrong.

Hint:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either
by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate
or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Math question:  2/3 of the House = how many Representatives?
                         2/3 of the Senate = how many Senators?

History question:  When was the last time the Democrats won a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate at the same time?

The courts failure to uphold the constitution doesn't justify ignoring the constitution. If you aren't going to do it the right way then you don't respect the constitution or what it stands for and that's not even covering the short sightedness that doing it this way just snowballs the problem because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power.

Another poor example.

Ur on a roll today.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Show me where anyone said "We should ignore the constitution," Straw Boy.

No one said it specifically, but it is inherent in the suggestion you make.

The process is defined in the constitution, but the mechanics are a bit more involved.

You are right but that still isn't an excuse for ignoring the process.

And you're a fool to throw out the "because you just give democrats more ammunition to do it when they retake power," argument, because that's not how an amendment is created and passed.

Work on the reading comprehension, I am talking about your suggestion of using "reinterpretation" to address the problem. If republicans use that tactic then democrats will to. I was not taking about making and passing amendments there.

Math question:  2/3 of the House = how many Representatives?
                         2/3 of the Senate = how many Senators?

History question:  When was the last time the Democrats won a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate at the same time?

Gosh you are short sighted in justifying the easy way to get what you want without considering the repercussions when democrats take power.

Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship. 

Right on cue, a few states' AGs sued for an injunction which was granted.

This video walks through the evidence that proves birthright citizenship only included individuals born in the US to the point in time when the amendment was ratified.  The debate on the amendment included the declaration that a foreigner or alien, diplomat, etc. will NOT be included in this amendment.

This is a good way for SCOTUS to address this quickly.  If we treat the 14th like how they ruled in Bruen, then it won't cover illegals who have children here.

I think Trump knew this and wanted it fast tracked to SCOTUS.

For too many generations, people took advantage of this. And along with "we can't deport the parents cause then the children who are US citizens won't have a family".