Mister Emu said:
They are categorically different in the method, and the legitimacy of the method, they use to seek their goals.
There is a vast difference between saying "the Constitution only says things I like" and "the Constitution says things I don't like, and we should use the amendment process to fix it".
Both have or will have a process, both could have an end result: change or alteration as to how were are to interperete certain Civil Rights, which is the crux of your argument that you are claiming is non-existent in the 2nd Amendment review, which unfortunately you have not really been able to make a case for other than semantics of what actually constitutes "change."
Mister Emu said:
They're both ignorant. But the tea party supporters aren't ignoring the 14th amendment, they are seeking to amend the constitution to reflect their desires. They aren't "interpreting" the 14th amendment to say what they want, they're saying it says something they don't like, and we need to change it
Nobody was "ignoring" the 2nd amendment either. :cover: Again, you're trying to word it so that the 2nd Amendment review didn't involve any special "interpreting," or have an end result of "change," thus making it some how different than what we're seeing with the 14th, and it plainly involves both.
Mister Emu said:
No, it is not. They don't want to interpret it in a way that suits them, they want to repeal it.
"suggesting Congress examine repealing the 14th Amendment, which deals with one way of becoming a U.S. citizen."
And how does this contradict what I said exactly? Their reason for wanting to repeal it is because want to interpret it the way was the the Founding Fathers "original intent" was.
"Some are even trying to suggest that how it is being used today is counter to the original intent of the Founding Fathers." That is their whole reasoning for wanting to review the amendment in the first place: Because illegal immigrants children being born here was not original intent of the Founding Fathers and the illegals are abusing it.
Mister Emu said:
Both equality under the law for all citizens, and the right to bear arms were direct results of the expressed will of the people as recognised in the 2nd and 14th amendments. We the people had everything to do with it. The Supreme Court did its job in protecting our rights, which we determined for ourselves(through our state and federal governments).
The point you're missing is, "the will of the people" had absolutely no bearing on the Supreme Court's final decision on the matter, despite your claim to the contrary. Doesn't matter if 80% of the population wanted to ban guns, the Supreme Court did it's job and protected our 2nd Amendment. Protecting the minority from the majority.
Mister Emu said:
They certainly are to be voted upon. How do you think we got the rights we have? Every right we legally have access to, except one that I know of, was brought about by the expressed will of the vast majority of the citizenry. The right to assemble, the right to religion, the right to a speedy trial, protection from unlawful search and seizure... they were all voted on. We vote on rights.
I'm not saying the will of the people has no bearing on Civil Rights, I'm saying that the will of the people is not the deciding factor on what gets done around here in regards to them. For example a majority of the people here in California voted that gay people were not allowed to get married by voting to amend our state constitution to define marriage as "one man and one woman." One group of people had their rights stripped away because the majority voted for it. Now it's getting over turned and looks like it could be making it's way to the top because regardless of what the will or majority of the people wanted, it is unconstitutional (for the time being). Same thing with ending slavery and black equality, I'm sure at certain times the majority of the people didn't want either of those things to happen either....
Civil Rights should not be decided on what the will of the people want; They should be decided based on what is constitutional and what isn't.
Mister Emu said:
It is the only legitimate recogniser of rights. The one that recognises rights can also take them away. If the courts determine our rights then upon their whim we have none. The only way for the people to be secure in their rights is if it is the power and will of the people that grants them.
See above.
Mister Emu said:
Were such an amendment passed(which ironically would also require amendment of the 14th to remove the equal protection under the law clause) I would certainly illegally express myself(perhaps at risk of imprisonment) to get such an amendment repealed.
There is a difference between what is right and what is constitutionally sound.
That seems to be in conflict with what you previously said:
Alterations of our rights are momentous occasions, and they require monumental effort. Constitutional "purists" know this and would rather not get what they seek than to subvert the will and prerogative of the people.
Which is fine because it demonstrates the flaw of that particular piece of reasoning: The will of the people should not determine what is and what isn't constitutional.
Mister Emu said:
The whole point is that no one has as yet demonstrated hypocrisy from them in this matter.
I think it has been demonstrated, but some people rely on semantics and mental gymnastics to get around recognizing it.
Mister Emu said:
What does that have to do with anything? As far as I know, they are not seeking to remove the equal protection clause. They are seeking to alter that all men born in America are citizens.
It has to do with your argument stating that altering citizenship to not being a birthright is not unconstitutional maybe? :sarcastic Unless that extends all the way to the Mayflower, then it's not in anyway equal and therefore not constitutional because it targets one specific group...which will bring us back to square one with "equality" in this country.
Mister Emu said:
A part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Whether they make it retroactive or not, if it passes it is constitutional.
It would be unconstitutional if they tried to pass a law limiting citizenship for those born in America while the 14th stands as is, but they aren't doing that...
So if it was constitutional for the Supreme Court to have the power to amended the constitution (which it does) so it ban guns from citizens, then that's constitutional too, right?
IF it passes in the way they want it to sans retroactive (which I doubt it will), then it will be in conflict with the equality parts of the constitution unless because it will target only one group of people...of course I guess you're right in the sense that anything officially on the constitution is technically "constitutional." But then, that brings us back to the OP, why stop at the 14th? What else are the going to make "constitutional?"
Mister Emu said:
There you go... something where you can rightly criticise them for hypocrisy. They get worked up whenever someone else acts in a way that Nazis acted, but acclaim themselves even though they acted in a way that Nazis did.
I've presented a good case for "rightly" criticizing them in this instance as well. Well, at least though we can agree on one thing.