Now it's just becoming BLATANT

[Mr Evilwrench]

Some people are so dense. For example, our right to travel is protected by limiting the government's ability to interfere with travel. It doesn't need to be specifically enumerated. What we do need is a judiciary that has the stones to overthrow government excesses, rather than refusing to hear cases for various specious reasons.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Some people are so dense. For example, our right to travel is protected by limiting the government's ability to interfere with travel. It doesn't need to be specifically enumerated. What we do need is a judiciary that has the stones to overthrow government excesses, rather than refusing to hear cases for various specious reasons.

Yep.

The first 10 amendments aren't even necessary.

 

[Que]

What did I miss? I can't seem to get back into the article now. I skimmed it, I only saw Ginsberg quoted. Who else was quoted and what did they say?

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

 

[traderdan]

While Americans are distracted by entertainment venues-Sports,movies,-and fed poisened information via the mainstream media,the foundation of our liberty is eroded away.

 

[dross]

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

You guys are misunderstanding his quote. He was referring to the constitutions in all those other countries who supposedly guarantee all those extra rights. He's saying that there's no substance behind them, just words on paper.

He's taking the pro-U.S. Constitution stance.

 

[$mooth]

"Of the world's democracies"...

Too bad the USofA is a Republic...

Representative democracy is a form of a republic

 

[singlestacksig]

MEXICO?? has a right to arms ?

 

[lashicoN]

MEXICO?? has a right to arms ?

Of course they do. Guaranteed by the United States Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

 

[Que]

You guys are misunderstanding his quote. He was referring to the constitutions in all those other countries who supposedly guarantee all those extra rights. He's saying that there's no substance behind them, just words on paper.

He's taking the pro-U.S. Constitution stance.

Honestly, that makes me feel much better. I was a bit bitter thinking he was saying that about our Constitution. I will go back and read the article again. Thanks for correcting my error.

UPDATE: Dross, you were absolutely right. Thanks!

 

[HeadlessRoland]

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

Well, he's right, isn't he? Government can choose to disregard it whenever they want - but the Constitution of these United States of America also clearly spells out the natural retribution for so doing. What amazes me is that a major newspaper put this in. I don't care if it's an editorial or a piece on supposed world government, disrespect for the Constitution is the last bit of disloyal opposition that I will tolerate as a free Citizen. It is - and has been for more than two centuries - a precious and sacred guiding light for the modern world, a beacon of hope for those who live under oppression, and a just warning against any who would impose tyranny. It is as close to perfection to me as my holy book, and I will not see it slandered and maligned by the weak-minded and tyrannical who seem to populate this Earth. And for fear of serious repercussion if I were to honest discuss how I feel about this subject (from the board moderators if not from some gentlemen in black suits from the secret echelons of Government), I think this is all I will have to say on the subject. May He Who is in Control protect us all - it's plain that Government is working toward the opposite.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yep.

The first 10 amendments aren't even necessary.

Theoretically, from a founding perspective, you are correct.

We should be grateful they were enumerated, however. Can you imagine what this country would be like now if they had not been?

How much earlier in our history would the individual liberties spelled out in them have been run roughshod over?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Theoretically, from a founding perspective, you are correct.

We should be grateful they were enumerated, however. Can you imagine what this country would be like now if they had not been?

How much earlier in our history would the individual liberties spelled out in them have been run roughshod over?

Are we better off? It could have only gone two ways. Government would have been limited to ONLY enumerated power, or Government would be granted unlimited power minus enumerated protections.

Seems like the Bill of Rights actually screwed us in the long term, as I don't think anyone would have interpretted the constitution to mean that the government could just do as it wished without any restrictions. Or if it had it would have been challenged and decided by now.

As with any good compromise, it left everyone pissed.