justin_o_guy2 wrote on 05/03/17 at 14:11:26:It'd be easy to understand why he would think he can do anything. Look at the unilateral decision making we've seen in the last , what? Twenty years?
I can't argue that.....
Here is my take, the president should be more of an ambassador, and hold the senate and house to work accordingly to iron out a compromise.
The senate and house to battle it out, as elected by their "constituents", read, not party, but if those who they represent.
Judicial should never, ever, be used to legislate or circumvent it.
The SC needs to uphold the constitution, not bend it.
If an amendment is needed decides the populace, then it needs to come up through the legislative branch, ratified, and extended.
However, it can not override another amendments intent.
Intent can be subjective, as much has happened the drafters could not have imagined.
However, most of this new ground would be technological, for the most part, example, they had no idea of advanced weaponry, that has the capacity to inflict great damage to the populace as well as the tyrannical....
I believe the right to bear not be infringed, but limitations of "arms" is a fair argument.
Pages: 1
