you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Argued against 1A" I think you mean tried explaining how woefully unqualified you are to tell other people what is and is not constitutional. You can tell yourself that there's no such thing as common law, or the general welfare clause, or that the supreme court only has the authority to decide a law's constitutionality when you agree with their conclusion. It just means you're delusional.

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can't even use the general welfare clause because it wasn't applied uniform throughout the US.

By this logic as long as its applied uniformly, you can use the "general welfare" clause to limit 2A and free speech etc. as much as you want in the name of "Welfare of the US".
The Supreme Court does not have the highest authority. It has the highest legal authority.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are still trying to convince yourself you are more qualified to interpret the constitution than the supreme court despite knowing no case history and at this point it's getting tedious. Sorry, but you're getting blocked.