Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:00:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1126 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> But as you said, it's a whole different issue than what our rights are today.
> Until the second is repealed, I'll hew to the law of the land, regardless of
> the inferior laws that people think matter.
I was just thinking, this last bit is the answer to the claim that we
are stick on an outdated piece of paper. If the 2nd really is not
appropriate as originally intended, then lets change it. The
Constitution tells us how to change it. If a law is not Constitutional,
then ignoring it is "working within the system" since the law should
have been created "within the system" by appropriately changing the
Constitution.
I dare anyone to claim that it is wrong to hold the ideals of the
PROCESS of governing and law creation that were laid out in the
Constitution. There may very well be outdated notions in the
Constitution, but the Constitution laid out the PROCESS which should be
followed, and in fact, since the process is part of the Constitution, it
is open to change itself, but it must be changed by following the old
process. All of these points ARE the only law which protects our
freedom. They lay out the restrictions on government changing our
freedoms.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
