Amendment Reviews: 2nd vs 14th

Amendment Reviews: 2nd vs 14th

The activist Supreme Court, populated with multiple judges appointed by Presidents who didn’t win the support of the majority of people in the USA, and who lied during their confirmation hearings, has just decided that States do not have the right to regulate firearm use, but do have the right to individually decide who does and does not have basic human rights.

Aside from being decisions made by the most disgustingly indecent and immoral minds, they also make little sense. We’re going to review both the 2nd and 14th Amendments and show just how twisted the far right has pulled the law into meaning something it absolutely does not.

We’re not going to review everything in a short article, of course. Feel free to add more in the comments.

2nd Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment’s meaning and use have probably seen the most abuse over time. Originally adopted from the Virginian Bill of Rights, the people at the country’s forming did not trust a national army, thinking it was a small matter for foreign influence to take it over. Thus they implemented militias as a replacement for a standing army, and tasked the people of the USA to protect itself from those who would seek to take away the freedom of the nation. In order to do that, the right to bear arms had to be protected, otherwise a government could simply ban weapons and then hand power over to someone else.

The the USA adopted a standing Army, first drafted and then voluntary. We now have a professional class of people who are well regulated and armed who protect the security of the free state, along with highly armed police forces to protect domestic interests.

For centuries the idea of this amendment was a communal right for the purposes of national defense. Then Heller happened. District of Columbia v. Heller didn’t just look into DC’s ban on handguns, but completely redefined what the amendment said and was for. Suddenly guns were not for national protection, not communal, but an individual right to protect oneself. There is nothing in the text nor precedent of the 2nd Amendment that would lead to this conclusion; it is the opposite.

There isn’t anything in the Constitution that states anyone has a right to protect themselves at all, but that could probably be covered by the 9th amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”). Watch this one, because it’s going to come into play in a moment.

Interestingly, there IS a limit on what guns you can use to protect yourself, again based on nothing in the Constitution. You cannot, for example, use a missile launcher or other heavy ordinance. You certainly cannot use a nuke or biological weapon. Yet there is nothing in any Constitutional text that bans that. It’s just a general understanding that states and the federal government have a monopoly on weapons of mass destruction and military grade ordinances.

So what exactly is the basis for infringing on the right of citizens to bear certain Arms? And why can states sometimes determine that and other times not (see sawed off shotguns vs concealed firearms)?

14th Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

After putting down the Confederate Rebellion, the USA passed 3 key Amendments to the Constitution addressing misconceptions and immorality done by the Southern Conservatives in their crushed attempt to keep slavery alive. The first was the 13th Amendment, which made slavery illegal (except for those jailed, which still today leads to all sorts of issues). The last was the 15th amendment, which made it possible for formerly enslaved and ignored minorities to have a full say in their governance, finally rectifying a core mistake made by the Framers. But the 14th amendment, the 2nd one passed, holds the key to understanding what rights are in the USA.

Firstly, it established that no matter how one got here, being born or naturalized makes you a full citizen, with a full guarantee of rights and duties, for both the nation and the state of residence. Originally designed to deny any racist the ability to exclude the slave-born from their rights, it’s gone on to be used for children born to undocumented migrants and US citizens born out of country but on US territory, all to serve the same purpose: equal access to the rights of people in the USA.

Secondly, it created an extreme roadblock for any law depriving any US person of not only their rights, but also their privileges and immunities. This meant that any law passed had to prove it was not taking a right away from the people, or any subsection thereof, or applying a different standard to access of public institutions etc (this took a while for people to grasp).

Thirdly, it created a ban on any state or state actor depriving a person of life, liberty or property without full due process of the law. This doesn’t mean a person can pass a law in general and then deprive a person; conversely, they have to prove on an individual basis that an individual no longer may have life, liberty or a property.

So it was that the Supreme Court correctly stated that a person’s right to autonomy and privacy was critical to their right to liberty, life and property. Roe v Wade codified that, and further precedent built on it, all up until three days ago. An activist court led by documented liars and appointed by corrupt officials stripped specifically women of their liberty and forced them to risk their lives, relieving them even of the right to own their own bodies. A greater violation of a Constitutional right, both in form and intent, has not occurred in memory.

Conclusion:

Laws are specific for a reason. People will try to abuse the meaning and language to their advantage.

The 2nd Amendment was not meant for individual protection, though the right to protect oneself could certainly be read into the 9th amendment. The tools for such defense may be regulated, so long as they do not infringe upon an individual’s ability to protect the free state. And those tools restrictions may differ per state, as there is not Constitutional federal rule on specifically what tools to allow or not, leaving it, via the 10th amendment, to the states.

The 14th Amendment was meant to establish and protect individual rights for US citizens, and needs no additional reading to be enumerated. Their rights may not be abridged generally, and only individually after full due process. Case after case has rested on these protections, and time and time again the courts have correctly noted that States do not get to determine which US citizens have rights within their borders.

The Supreme Court has ruled incorrectly, vindictively, and politically. It is not legitimate and should be reviewed, recalled and members impeached as needed. Do not do this and we will no longer have access to our Constitutional rights.