Posted on Mar 27, 2018
Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
6.07K
242
43
18
18
0
This just stuns me that retired justice of the highest court would even think of this.
Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Posted from mobile.nytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Constitution
Law Enforcement
Constitution Law Enforcement
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 19
11
11
0
I find any attempt to "repeal" the 2nd Amendment as constitutionally impossible.
To recind any innate right requires an entirely new Constitution, based on a totally different view of Humanity.
Neither the 2nd nor any other amendment in the Bill of Rights "granted" any right to the people. The BOR was merely a recognition and guarantee of those pre-existing rights which the people had simply by virtue of the fact that they were Humans.
The rights which the Founders knew they did not possess the power to grant --- but could only guarantee would be respected and preserved ---- most certainly are beyond the rightful power of our government to cancel or "repeal".
As the Founders stated in 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, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Our government is established “to secure these [unalienable] rights”, not to have government abolish what they did not, and could not, grant. If any of those rights -- the keystone of the government the Founders established, are to be "repealed", then an entirely new government, with a new and different view of Human nature and the role of government, resulting in a new Constitution is required.
If there is such a belief in a radically different view of Humanity, and evaluation that our present government is "destructive" to these new, modern views on the nature of Humanity, then they have the moral right "to alter or abolish it". Those who would abolish any enumerated right guaranteed in the Bill of rights must ask themselves if they dare to take that step, and like our Founders "pledge [their] lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to their cause.
The only "repeal" of an Amendment was the repeal of Prohibition, the 18th Amendment, by the 21st. That was correcting the error of an usurpation of the rights of the people, committed at the behest of a self-righteous, self-anointed group who felt they knew what was best for all their countrymen. We can see the same delusion in those who think banning guns holds the promise of a “safe and sane” civil society.
To recind any innate right requires an entirely new Constitution, based on a totally different view of Humanity.
Neither the 2nd nor any other amendment in the Bill of Rights "granted" any right to the people. The BOR was merely a recognition and guarantee of those pre-existing rights which the people had simply by virtue of the fact that they were Humans.
The rights which the Founders knew they did not possess the power to grant --- but could only guarantee would be respected and preserved ---- most certainly are beyond the rightful power of our government to cancel or "repeal".
As the Founders stated in 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, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Our government is established “to secure these [unalienable] rights”, not to have government abolish what they did not, and could not, grant. If any of those rights -- the keystone of the government the Founders established, are to be "repealed", then an entirely new government, with a new and different view of Human nature and the role of government, resulting in a new Constitution is required.
If there is such a belief in a radically different view of Humanity, and evaluation that our present government is "destructive" to these new, modern views on the nature of Humanity, then they have the moral right "to alter or abolish it". Those who would abolish any enumerated right guaranteed in the Bill of rights must ask themselves if they dare to take that step, and like our Founders "pledge [their] lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to their cause.
The only "repeal" of an Amendment was the repeal of Prohibition, the 18th Amendment, by the 21st. That was correcting the error of an usurpation of the rights of the people, committed at the behest of a self-righteous, self-anointed group who felt they knew what was best for all their countrymen. We can see the same delusion in those who think banning guns holds the promise of a “safe and sane” civil society.
(11)
(0)
10
10
0
People are free to think what they want; the First Amendment provides freedom of expression. I’m not a Constitutional expert, but here’s my take: As a citizen, I support the Constitution as written. The US flag represents both the Constitution, and the Republic - for which it stands. When I say the “Pledge of Allegiance” (hand over heart - or saluting), I am solemnly pledging allegiance to the flag, the Republic, and to the Constitution. As a military member, I also swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution provides for adding and repealing of amendments. If there is sufficient support by both houses of Congress, or a Constitutional Convention called for by the required number of State Legislatures, and then ratified by the required majority of the States, the Constitution can probably be made to read just about anything. People who want to change the Constitution are welcome to go through that process. Any other process to circumvent the Constitution is “unconstitutional”, and to do so by force or deception makes them traitors. I also swore to DEFEND the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I swore that same oath on four occasions: first, to enter the service, again when I accepted my Warrant appointment, then on my entering into the National Guard, and finally, when I entered the USPS. I still take my oaths (and pledges) seriously; they are life-long commitments. IMHO
I swore that same oath on four occasions: first, to enter the service, again when I accepted my Warrant appointment, then on my entering into the National Guard, and finally, when I entered the USPS. I still take my oaths (and pledges) seriously; they are life-long commitments. IMHO
(10)
(0)
SSG William Jones
CW5 John M.
Good post. Without the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't be able to keep the 1st Amendment.
Good post. Without the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't be able to keep the 1st Amendment.
(4)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
You are aware that the Constitution, as written, did not include the Bill of Rights or any other amendments, aren't you? The Constitution provided for an amendment process, which is how we got the Bill of Rights, and the amendment process has been used before to repeal previous amendments. Supporting the Constitution as written means that people can try to repeal either part of the original Constitution or any of the amendments.
(2)
(0)
CW5 John M.
Capt Gregory Prickett - Thank you. That’s a great point that could use clarification. I didn’t intend to say “the Constitution ‘base’ document as written - prior to all attached amendments”. Rather, the Constitution “as written” to me implies and includes all of it’s amendments later written into it. Some of the amendments are considered inalienable rights - the Bill of Rights. Inalienable rights pre-date the Constitution, which merely affirms and supports those “eternal rights”.
Said another way, “The Oath” does not mention any of the amendments; they are implied. Only the word “Constitution” is mentioned. The “Bill of Rights” are not mentioned in the oath because they are included with it. The “Constitution as written” - to me, means the INSEPARABLE amendments are included. I Hope that clears up my post. As I said, I’m not an expert on the Constitution.
Said another way, “The Oath” does not mention any of the amendments; they are implied. Only the word “Constitution” is mentioned. The “Bill of Rights” are not mentioned in the oath because they are included with it. The “Constitution as written” - to me, means the INSEPARABLE amendments are included. I Hope that clears up my post. As I said, I’m not an expert on the Constitution.
(3)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
CW5 John M. - the amendments are part of the Constitution, which was the point I was making.
(2)
(0)
10
10
0
Again, the "Left" can never be "Right"!! This man has total shi* for brains!
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google