joe biden says "no amendment is in fact absolute"

[ayin jade]

If "no amendment is in fact absolute" then where does one stop? The us constitution is the foundation of this country and changing the bill of rights is not an option. 

Not a single democratic candidate is worth voting for. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-on-the-second-amendment-no-amendment-is-absolute

[LadyKay]

I was going to start a new thread about this but maybe that is not necessary.   So this is what I found concerning the absolute of amendments:

 

* Fundamental rights are not absolute, in the sense that reasonable restrictions can be placed on them.

An example is Article 21 of the constitution: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

So a person's right to life or personal liberty can be restricted according to procedure established by law. That is why you find people in prison. Their fundamental right to liberty is restricted by a procedure established by law. Similarly, the fundamental right to privacy can be restricted by a procedure established by law.    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15088490

 

* Repealing Fundamental Rights - The Fundamental Right to Contract

Even when the Supreme Court finds that something is a fundamental right, the Court may later revoke its standing as a fundamental right. The Court did this with the right to contract. In Lochner v New York (1905), the Supreme Court found that the right to make a private contract is a fundamental right. The Court focused on the importance of economic contracts in the context of individual liberty. In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish  (1937), however, the Court found that there is not a fundamental right to contract: "There is no absolute freedom to do as one wills or to contract as one chooses."   https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

 

The First Amendment:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Right To Free Speech Is Not Absolute:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government sometimes may be allowed to limit speech. For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about a person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence. The government also may regulate speech by limiting the time, place or manner in which it is made. For example the government may require activists to obtain a permit before holding a large protest rally on a public street.     

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/first-amendment

Going by the  examples I found. It seems to me that Mr. Biden is correct. No amendment is absolute.  If anyone cares to look this stuff up. There is much information on the net explaining it much better then I can.  And I learn stuff I did not know.  

[Guest PinkBelt]

On 8/12/2019 at 1:24 PM, ayin jade said:

If "no amendment is in fact absolute" then where does one stop? The us constitution is the foundation of this country and changing the bill of rights is not an option. 

Not a single democratic candidate is worth voting for. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-on-the-second-amendment-no-amendment-is-absolute

For Pete's sake... the constitution has been amended almost 20 times since it's inception. What exactly is he incorrect about? You talk as if he were suggesting something unprecedented.

[ayin jade]

2 hours ago, PinkBelt said:

For Pete's sake... the constitution has been amended almost 20 times since it's inception. What exactly is he incorrect about? You talk as if he were suggesting something unprecedented.

The bill of rights, the first 10 amendments, have not been changed. That is what he wants to change.

[Guest PinkBelt]

42 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

The bill of rights, the first 10 amendments, have not been changed. That is what he wants to change.

Well I checked Google and can't find a direct quote where he or anyone in the DNC said they wanted to do this. While the bill of rights cannot be changed they can be modified and altered via additional amendments. Ergo my initial comment is still valid.

Edited August 14, 2019 by PinkBelt

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, PinkBelt said:

Well I checked Google and can't find a direct quote where he or anyone in the DNC said they wanted to do this. While the bill of rights cannot be changed they can be modified and altered via additional amendments. Ergo my initial comment is still valid.

2:32 p.m. ET, August 10, 2019

Biden mocks 'tree of liberty' gun rights advocates

From CNN's Eric Bradner

“No amendment is, in fact, absolute,” Biden said. “You cannot, you cannot stand up in this hall and yell ‘fire.’ That’s not freedom of speech.”

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/iowa-state-fair-2019/h_e1489039656b17b95f7049b1844defbf

 

[Guest PinkBelt]

2 hours ago, ayin jade said:

2:32 p.m. ET, August 10, 2019

Biden mocks 'tree of liberty' gun rights advocates

From CNN's Eric Bradner

“No amendment is, in fact, absolute,” Biden said. “You cannot, you cannot stand up in this hall and yell ‘fire.’ That’s not freedom of speech.”

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/iowa-state-fair-2019/h_e1489039656b17b95f7049b1844defbf

 

No wonder I couldn't find where he said he wanted to change the bill of rights, he never said that. You're really reaching in order to interpret his words that way. Here is the entire comment:

Quote

 

At a gun safety forum in Des Moines, former Vice President Joe Biden mocked advocates of Second Amendment rights who lean on Thomas Jefferson’s famous “tree of liberty” quote. “Give me a break,” Biden said. “Carrying concealed weapons? Come on. Come on.” “Can you go out and buy a flamethrower? Can you go out and buy an F-15?” he said. “If you want to protect yourself against the federal government, you’re going to need at least an F-15.” Biden was mocking pro-gun advocates who cite Jefferson’s line, delivered in a letter discussing Shays’ Rebellion: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”  “No amendment is, in fact, absolute,” Biden said. “You cannot, you cannot stand up in this hall and yell ‘fire.’ That’s not freedom of speech.”

Biden also brought up a controversial remark he’d made in the past that the National Rifle Association is not gun control advocates’ enemy. He said the problem is that “the gun manufacturers are supplying the leadership of the NRA with their income.” “The reason they don’t want what they know is rational gun policy is they’ll sell fewer guns. They’ll sell less ammunition. Who in God’s name needs a weapon that can handle 100 rounds? For God’s sake,” he said. He advocated a series of gun control measures, starting with requiring gun manufacturers to use biometric markers -- like a fingerprint, used to unlock older iPhones -- that ensure only the owner of a gun can fire it. Biden also said gun manufacturers should not be shielded from liability for how their guns are used. Additionally, he advocated for confiscating the guns of anyone with a restraining order and for an assault weapons ban. “There’s a lot of practical things that we’re not doing that are easily able to be done, but it requires the federal government to have a commitment to follow through on what all of you are talking about,” Biden said.

 

Clearly he is stating that all rights have limits, which is true. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Clearly the right to own guns is not absolute... you can't own a flamethrower or F15 fighter jet. He is saying he wants some sort of gun control. Most of the country agrees.

[LadyKay]

3 hours ago, ayin jade said:

“No amendment is, in fact, absolute,” Biden said. “You cannot, you cannot stand up in this hall and yell ‘fire.’ That’s not freedom of speech.”

And.....this is true.  No amendment is absolute. (as noted in my other post on this with all those examples I gave)   So.....with that out of the way. What is important now is to find out how Mr. Biden wants to amend the 2 amendment.  I can not side for or against since I do not have the information on what changes he wants to make. 

 

 

[createdequal]

I have a question:

 

Should the right to life of any American be restricted because some other American citizen wants that person dead? Let's say the person wants the other person dead because that person "inconveniences him"

just wondering

[LadyKay]

22 hours ago, createdequal said:

I have a question:

 

Should the right to life of any American be restricted because some other American citizen wants that person dead? Let's say the person wants the other person dead because that person "inconveniences him"

just wondering

I think that might be a question for another topic.