Democrat Congressman James Clyburn, SC, says he doubts the Bill of Rights would pass in 2019, because he meets many people who want to uproot it. Are our Constitutional guarantees in such jeopardy that “we the people” might tear them up? Would the first ten Amendments to the Constitution survive a clean up or down vote at the 2020 Democratic National Convention?
Categories
Would the Bill of Rights Pass in 2019? Democrat Congressman Doubts It
Democrat Congressman James Clyburn, SC, says he doubts the Bill of Rights would pass in 2019, because he meets many people who want to uproot it. Are our Constitutional guarantees in such jeopardy that “we the people” might tear them up? Would the first ten Amendments to the Constitution survive a clean up or down vote at the 2020 Democratic National Convention?
13 replies on “Would the Bill of Rights Pass in 2019? Democrat Congressman Doubts It”
The notable difference between prohibition and say, the second amendment is that prohibition limited what the people were allowed to do (and part of why we as a people rejected it) the 2nd (and other amendments) limit what the government is allowed to do.
My 2 cents
Love how Scott keeps pushing the absurd.
Removing the Bill of Rights will work as well at telling the govt what not to do would work as well as the Commerce clause does now.
The Supremes have gotten out of the habit of telling the legislators they can’t write a bill about that and the bureaucrats that they can’t do things the legislators haven’t written about.
To Bill’s last point about repealing the 2nd not removing our natural rights, contract law also generally states that you cannot sign away certain rights in a contract. It doesn’t matter if someone will pay you a million dollars, a contract making you their slave is still null and void.
Hey simpleton, that’s why they made it so difficult to change.
Is there any risk from using that person’s image for the title frame in this video?
I recognize that photo but I don’t know the person. Who is it? I’m guessing a Nazi.
I think that’s Professor Melissa Click’s head on Lenin’s body. So, communist would be a better bet.
To answer the question in the text; I think the Bill of Rights may have a hard time passing in the Republican Convention. The Democrat Convention is a given to reject it.
I would be horrified if it happened but should the Second Amendment be repealed AND a federal statute enacted forbidding the personal ownership or possession of firearms be passed that statute would probably be valid and enforceable.
If ownership or possession of firearms is a natural right that the government could cannot eliminate then there was no need for the Second Amendment in the first place. This was an argument made during the First Congress when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Read “The First Congress” by Bodewich (sp?). Fascinating; nothing about the Bill of Rights is as commonly understood.
Boy, I’m wordy today. The first amendment has more than one part. First part is religion.
The second is freedom of speech or the press. The two are on one sentence meaning if one part of the sentence goes away, both do. The next is freedom to assemble then freedom to petition for greivances. All that would go away if the first amendment went away.
It’s the 9th amendment that says that rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are not denied to the people. The 10th says powers not specifically mention in the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people. Also, the 2nd amendment says arms. Not guns. That means any weapon is covered, even ones that do not yet exist, meaning the founders thought beyond what existed, this nullifying the argument that semi automatic weapons are not covered. Indeed, after I did some research, it seems some non governmental citizens owned the weapon of mass destruction of the time: the cannon
The Bill of Rights only enumerates a minimal list of rights, which the Federal Government is to explicitly leave alone. This is a minimal, but not comprehensive, list. Unfortunately, the tyrants refuse to accept this fact; therefore, the Second Amendment exists. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe)
I just subscribed a few minutes ago and came to this thread too late to comment before Harry Ferguson so ably did for me. The 9th Amendment covers all unenumerated rights that the federal government cannot deny to the people.
The REASON for that is that ALL power for the federal, state and local governments come from the PEOPLE.
We, the PEOPLE, are sovereign, not the governments that we, the PEOPLE, created. The Creature has NO AUTHORITY over the Creator except those that we, the PEOPLE grant it; and WE, the PEOPLE, created all the governments within these united States.
The governments that WE, the PEOPLE created have no RIGHTS. They have specific powers that WE, the PEOPLE granted them – and that is ALL.