“The people of the state of New York have every right to interpret the Second Amendment—as much right as Justice Clarence Thomas does.”
Does this apply to any other amendment contained in the Bill of Rights? Do we acknowledge that the people of different states can interpret for themselves, say, the scope of First Amendment protection for obscenity or “hate speech” or the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial in the most heinous of accusations? Because I don’t think anyone across the political spectrum does.
I will use this combox to bang on the drum for my paraphrase of the Second Amendment (as I do in all such discussions): "Because an effective, civilian controlled military is necessary for a free state, the right of the people to join and serve in the military shall not be infringed." I think that the liberal side of gun rights debated is doomed until liberals consistently explains to the public that "bear arms" means "serve in a military" and not "carry a gun" to the point that it's a well known talking point. Right now the "common sense" interpretation is on the right wing's side, historical meaning of the amendment be damned. The aggravating thing is that the 2nd amendment was infringed as recently as Trump's trans ban, but at the time no one framed it that way. It actually is a very liberal amendment.
If "the people" does not give a right to individuals, then does that mean the first amendment doesn't give a right to an individual to protest, but only to classes of people that the government thinks worthy of assembly?
“The people of the state of New York have every right to interpret the Second Amendment—as much right as Justice Clarence Thomas does.”
Does this apply to any other amendment contained in the Bill of Rights? Do we acknowledge that the people of different states can interpret for themselves, say, the scope of First Amendment protection for obscenity or “hate speech” or the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial in the most heinous of accusations? Because I don’t think anyone across the political spectrum does.
Does the 4th Amendment secure an individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
I will use this combox to bang on the drum for my paraphrase of the Second Amendment (as I do in all such discussions): "Because an effective, civilian controlled military is necessary for a free state, the right of the people to join and serve in the military shall not be infringed." I think that the liberal side of gun rights debated is doomed until liberals consistently explains to the public that "bear arms" means "serve in a military" and not "carry a gun" to the point that it's a well known talking point. Right now the "common sense" interpretation is on the right wing's side, historical meaning of the amendment be damned. The aggravating thing is that the 2nd amendment was infringed as recently as Trump's trans ban, but at the time no one framed it that way. It actually is a very liberal amendment.
If "the people" does not give a right to individuals, then does that mean the first amendment doesn't give a right to an individual to protest, but only to classes of people that the government thinks worthy of assembly?