Summations Only

Amusing. Obviously guns are more deadly than rat poison. But rat poison is not protected by the 2nd amendment. As much as I want to get rid of guns, I am not for having the government ignore the constitution in their zeal to make this a better place, because it would not be. YMMV.

That's the kind of Constitution-worship that makes non-Americans a bit queasy.

That's fine. But surely a government as powerful as the US government that disregards the law with respect to even its own citizens ought to make you feel even more upset.I rely on the fact that our government has limits. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No. A government that blindly follows a stupid law makes me more upset.

Well just add a new amendment to the constitution, one that says something like well regulated, and maby militia would be good

Stupid or not, blind or not, in a nation Ruled By Law even the government is expected to follow the law. To do otherwise is to have a nation ruled by whim.In the USA the Constitution is about as sacred a document as you can get in a secular society and is structured to NOT be changeable on a mere majority whim.Do not fault the law or the government subject to its rule. Fault the society that has the tools but refuses to use them. This is a glaring example of a people dedicated to self-rule; government of, by and for those subject to their own faults.The Second Amendment is the law until an overwhelming super majority of the people say otherwise.One look at the present presidential race should be enough to thank Dog for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I don't see how respecting the highest law, which keeps a government from devolving in to a tyrannical shit hole, is somehow a bad thing. Sure, there are some misguided individuals who place the Constitution in mythical reverence as if it came down off the mountain carved in stone by the hand of Almighty God... But for more temperate people, it's simply the highest law of the land that restrains a government from wielding unlimited power. Checks and balances... That's a good thing.

It's not so much an issue of respecting constitutional law - but rather the sentiment that such respect means that you shouldn't contemplate change to that law - the feeling that it is somehow unpatriotic and contrary to the rule of law to review the constitution from time to time, and make sure it's fit for purpose.The idea that the States could even imagine a constitution in which women can't vote is ridiculous today. And yet it took the 19th amendment to the constitution to allow that change.I don't think that arguing that elements of any constitution are archaic and in need of re-assessment, is in any way an attack on the rule of law.

quote:

---

I don't think that arguing that elements of any constitution are archaic and in need of re-assessment, is in any way an attack on the rule of law.
  —Vim

---

In fact the exact opposite.The law is here to represent and enforce the moral values of the society it supports. If an old law no longer does that because society has grown and developed and the situations requiring the original law no longer exist, or the law has become harmful to its society, the law makers have a moral obligation to change it.

Most of us are not taking that position, and I certainly don't. In fact my opinion is that the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment in an historically extreme way. But that said, the rule of law here requires that the government follow the law until it is changed or reinterpreted. I don't want a powerful unchecked rogue government doing whatever is expedient.

That's what I'm doing. The Second Amendment clearly does not apply to people who are not members of "a well-regulated militia", yet your government stupidly follows the misinterpretation of the law.

It isn't the constitution that restrains the government from wielding unlimited power. Constitutions are suspended every day.

Perhaps you are right. Let's look at some examples of constitutions that have been suspended so far this year and evaluate whether they make good examples. Which ones are those?

(I hope you recognize that "every day" or "this year" in this context is a figure of speech - and I'll be glad to explain to you what a figure of speech is, if necessary.)Wikipedia knows everything. Here's a list of political leaders who suspended the constitution.

Of course it is a figure of speech. That's why I gave you a period of months over which to cite some examples. Apparently "suspended every day" is a gross exaggeration. "[T]his year" as I used it was not a figure of speech.It turns out that suspensions of constitutions are not very common, and that examples of such suspensions being a good idea are even rarer. Most of them are done by dictators and have little to recommend them as examples. What's your point?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.