It is amazing how the same politicians who say that they can’t pass sensible gun legislation because of the Second Amendment managed to pass abortion bans when Roe v Wade was still the law of the land. 🤔
#democracy #politics #uspolitics #guns #massshooting #lawfedi
@jackiegardina The difference is they can point to "shall not be infringed" and all we had was some mystical "penumbra" not actually written in the Constitution.
What we need is "The right of the people to bodily soveignty is absolute and personal privacy shall not be infringed" or some such clear unambiguous language protecting us in the Constitution.
But we can't even get a 38-state-ratified ERA on the books, so good luck with that.
@RadicalRuss The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a late 20th century creation. It can be reversed just like a penumbra can be erased.
Moreover, there are so many constitutional legislative actions that could be taken and have been taken in other states—like Massachusetts and California—that could be duplicated in other states or at the federal level.
The long, long list of references saying otherwise is pretty stark.
But regardless, trying to reverse outcomes based on changing interpretations like that comes across as gaslighting.
"That phrase does not mean the thing you think it clearly means. Trust me."
This is why we have a constitutional amendment process, though. Work to create a political consensus to change (or "clarify") constitutional rights, and have at it.
I see nothing bonkers in saying the first half of 2A is functionally irrelevant. It merely echos the preamble as being a little aside.
Anyway, a huge problem with a privacy amendment is figuring out a way to frame one that wouldn't directly impact so much longstanding and well-regarded functioning of the government.
For example, how do you say a person has a right to take an abortion pill but not a right to take prescription drugs without a prescription? Or do you give up all drug regulation? All medical device regulation?
The real issue here isn't the amendment. It's figuring out some theory by which government can regulate some things we do to ourselves but not others.
@volkris Thanks, I think you see where I'm trying to go with this. Absolutely the 20th C interpretation of 2A is bonkers -- as if the first half is irrelevant -- but it's now where we see.
A need for a privacy amendment is long overdue and it could easily be sold to both conservative and liberal voters.