Because today in a Senate committee he admitted that: "None of these rights are absolute, none of them." What was he referring to? The Bill of Rights/ Constitution. Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor Partisan Democrats have to be running out of excuses to keep supporting psychopaths like him.
Yes it can get "stupider". Take a look at the voters supporting morons like this. One of those idiots is going to take his place. How the hell do you think we got to this point.
Lack of objectivity is the greatest flaw in all of our legislation. Or...they just pretend the laws are not exact and objective.
Well, we have cannabis prohibition in the U.S., so it's obvious that congress doesn't understand the rights granted by the constitution. They will talk their way around anything if they can get a few bucks from lobbyists.
Any lack of objectivity in our legislation allows for rights to be infringed upon. This relativism makes me sick.
^Exactly. Any right can be circumvented with clever words. Especially after passage of the NDAA, where anything is considered a "terrorist activity" that the government doesn't like. If the government decides that discussing legalization of cannabis is a "terrorist activity" then any NORML meeting can be raided and everyone in attendance can be detained forever without any legal rights. It's fucking disgusting.
There are limits to every right. There is a difference between "taking away" a right and limiting just how far you can go with it. You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to threaten others or incite violence with your speech. Thus, it is not an absolute. You have the right to bear arms. No one has taken that away from you. You have always been limited to what arms you can own. It's not like during constitutional times you could walk down main street with a scythe and frighten people around you. The constitution also gives congress the right to regulate interstate trade, which would include the gun industry.
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? In regards to the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law" is pretty damn clear. Oh I feel threatened by those WORDS! Run for the hills! In regards to the second amendment, "shall not be infringed" is also pretty damn clear. There should be no limits to what I can own.
To quote a famous lib on this: "It depends on what you definition of is is.." Bill Clinton If statists(like one or two in this forum) dont like the law, they just redefine words or ignore them completely. Its a basic tenant of being a statist.