Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized after falling at her office

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,270
31,819
1,743
oklahoma city
#81
Oh snap, the internet betrays me once again. I like the quote even if Jefferson didn't say it. ;)

I did know the point of reference of the RBG quote, but I still disagree with her. The bill of rights has served as an incredible foundation throughout the years to ensure our freedom. I would advise any country drafting a constitution to look first at the bill of rights and expand from there.

Do you really believe that she wouldn't remove the 2nd amendment from the constitution if she could?
I have no idea what she would do with the 2nd amendment. There are plenty of people who are for gun control who also would not be for abolishing the 2nd amendment. In fact, anyone here that is fine with the fact that people are unable to just go buy an M-60 are wanting gun control. It is merely a question of how much.

Many people here on this board are calling for the removal of the 14th amendment and/ or the 17th amendment. Are you trying to say that they are against our constitution?

And, while trying to still disgaree with her, you are still agreeing with her. She said in that conversation:
"If the people don't care, then the best Constitution in the world won't make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the Constitution, first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor. "
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,290
2,947
1,743
#83
I have no idea what she would do with the 2nd amendment. There are plenty of people who are for gun control who also would not be for abolishing the 2nd amendment. In fact, anyone here that is fine with the fact that people are unable to just go buy an M-60 are wanting gun control. It is merely a question of how much.

Many people here on this board are calling for the removal of the 14th amendment and/ or the 17th amendment. Are you trying to say that they are against our constitution?

And, while trying to still disgaree with her, you are still agreeing with her. She said in that conversation:
"If the people don't care, then the best Constitution in the world won't make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the Constitution, first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor. "
IMO, the constitution is document that can be changed, but the original bill of rights is untouchable.

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/10/justice_ginsber.php
RBG dissented in the Disctrict of Columbia vs Heller that established an individual's right to bear arms. She has said that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to an individual and that it's now obsolete. It sure seems that she wants more than common sense gun control laws.

When she was doing the interview she said: "I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."
You claim that she did this because the constitution is dated, but I believe it has more to do with the content. The South African constitution is one of the most liberal constitutions ever written. It guarantees free housing, healthcare, and college education. It doesn't grant the right to bear arms.

Maybe I'm reading too far between the lines and I have the wrong opinion of her. It just bothers me that a SC justice would seemingly prefer the liberal utopian constitution of a 3rd world country over our own which has served as our country's foundation for centuries.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,270
31,819
1,743
oklahoma city
#84
IMO, the constitution is document that can be changed, but the original bill of rights is untouchable.

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/10/justice_ginsber.php
RBG dissented in the Disctrict of Columbia vs Heller that established an individual's right to bear arms. She has said that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to an individual and that it's now obsolete. It sure seems that she wants more than common sense gun control laws.

When she was doing the interview she said: "I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."
You claim that she did this because the constitution is dated, but I believe it has more to do with the content. The South African constitution is one of the most liberal constitutions ever written. It guarantees free housing, healthcare, and college education. It doesn't grant the right to bear arms.

Maybe I'm reading too far between the lines and I have the wrong opinion of her. It just bothers me that a SC justice would seemingly prefer the liberal utopian constitution of a 3rd world country over our own which has served as our country's foundation for centuries.
That does make her sound anti-gun.

On the other hand, it appears that many people think our constitution is the 2nd amendment and then some other stuff that is not as important as the second amendment.

Her own words were that she said because at the time our constitution was written it did not protect anyone but white men basically. She is liberal so there is no surprise that she would like other rights that you don't agree with. Her concept of all the details of a constitution is going to be different than yours, but what she said about freedom, liberty, and our constitution does not make me think she is ready to tear the document up.