| sc94597 said: You misunderstand the constitution. It doesn't give anybody any rights. It recognizes the already inherent rights of the people when in the process of giving the federal government power. The issue was that the Articles of Confederation didn't work in unifying the states, but rather acted to enable divergent interests. The constitution was meant to provide a federal system which would make certain things more efficient, such as a unified international relationship or unified finances. Hence, the constitution is the basis for federal law. It is the contract between the states, whom the people gave power to represent them, with each other to form a federal system. In order for the federal government to get more power, IT MUST, do it through the constitution and ask for it from the sovereign power - the people. Then all people, as represented by their politicians, must agree on these changes, because it affects ALL people, and we don't live in a direct democracy or mob rule - which never works in large populations. So the ammendment to own guns represents the more fundamental right to self-defence, and it is something inherent to the people, not something the federal government can control, as the federal government is not th sovereign power, but the people are. As for the published article, the problem is that a power was given to the state government by the people that shouldn't have been given, and it was a mistake. Hence, they wish to take back that power. Nothing is wrong with that, as it's thepeople's right to give and take whichever powers they want from their governments. The constitution might be outdated, and if that's the case, a new one must be written - otherwise a repealment of the entire constitution will be a repealment of the federal government, as it's the basic document which created the federal government. |
I don't misunderstand the constitution at all. But I think you misunderstand the difference between the mythology of your nation's laws and the actuality of it. It's nice to think of "the right to bear arms" as some sort of "inherent right of the people", but the fact of the matter is, if it was so inherent, it wouldn't need to be written into a document. The constitution was a way to establish firm ground rules to the formation of the union, a way to protect people and states from oppression. There is no such thing as an "inalienable right", because if it was inalienable, then it would actually be impossible to remove it.
And yes, obviously a new constitution would need to be written. When I said the constitution was outdated, I mean the specific one, not constitutions in general. And along the way, yes, there'd need to be a dissolution of the federal government, temporarily.
