Rightwingers lose biggly in Wisconsin.

[haymarket]

banning certain types is infringement. it's ok for us to not challenge certain restrictions (such as automatic weapons) out of common sense, but it's still not in the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and thus the law. That doesn't mean we should allow them to pick and choose EVERYTHING when it is clearly a right of ours. IF you want to change that then you need to amend the constitution through the outlined process.

How is it infringement if the right can still be exercised through a wide myriad of choices?

 

[Hypothetical]

because it plainly states that the right shall not be infringed. definition of infringe is to act so as to limit or undermine something.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/Submit
verb
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More

 

[ludin]

It is paradoxical for a court to ignore the constitution's intentionally designed flexibility and adaptability, to go with the rigidity of originialism to interpret it.

The constitution isn't that flexible or adaptiable.
in fact it is very difficult to change the constitution and the founding fathers made it that way on purpose.
they wanted to ensure that if the constitution was to be changed that there was a create need for it.

There have been over 11k amendments since 1789 only 27 have ever passed.
every year there are about 50-100 proposals and they never even make it to a vote.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Wasn’t it against the law at the time, they are judges not law makers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're job is to evaluate if the laws are constitutional. Fortunately, the liberal judges had the common sense to rule that a law banning sodomy was unconstitutional.

Three conservative judges including Scalia dissented and voted to support the Texas law.

 

[poweRob]

The constitution isn't that flexible or adaptiable.
in fact it is very difficult to change the constitution and the founding fathers made it that way on purpose.
they wanted to ensure that if the constitution was to be changed that there was a create need for it.

There have been over 11k amendments since 1789 only 27 have ever passed.
every year there are about 50-100 proposals and they never even make it to a vote.

I agree it's difficult. As it should be. I'm just saying that the root of the ideology of originalism seems to refer to a static target in time while amendments make the Constitution more of a moving target over time.