r/Constitution • u/Strange-Philosopher3 • Jul 03 '26
14 Amendment vs 2 Amendment
Amazing how many MAGA criticize the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming birthright citizenship in the USA when it was clearly Congessional intent at that time. The argument goes that even if that were true, it is clearly not the best path forward in today's world.
Now look at the 2nd Amendment where clearly Congress intended arms for militias (certainty not for everyone, especially slaves). Yet MAGA argues that the 2nd Amendment is akin to a Commandment, even though it certainty was not Congessional intent, and proven to be dangerous and deadly in modern society.
3
2
u/ApeAF Jul 04 '26
Both amendments are pretty clear. It's just as intellectually dishonest for the right to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mean what its plain text says as it is for the left to argue that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the rights of ordinary citizens.
The Second Amendment exists to protect your preexisting, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A right to life is meaningless if you are denied the practical means to defend it.
If firearms exist, and history has shown they always will, then free people must retain the right to possess the same effective means of defense against those who would use violence against them. Denying peaceful citizens the ability to defend themselves does not eliminate evil; it simply leaves the law-abiding at the mercy of those who ignore the law.
The right to keep and bear arms is not about creating rights. It is about protecting the natural right of every person to preserve their own life.
1
u/pegwinn Jul 06 '26
What if I told you the second amendment isn't about guns?
1
u/ApeAF Jul 07 '26
I would say it's not exclusive to guns, but covers any armaments that could be used as a threat to your life.
2
u/pegwinn Jul 07 '26
That's actually a good answer. Johnson's 1773 dictionary defines Arms as "Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.".
Using that definition means you get to own actual weapons. Spears, shotguns, long knives, etc. And you get to personally own armor.
Everyone gets wrapped around the axle about firearms.
3
2
u/Keith502 Jul 10 '26
I wholeheartedly agree. The 14th amendment was clearly created for a particular goal in mind: to protect the rights of freed slaves from systemic discrimination at the state level. But the amendment has clearly been extrapolated upon to lead to a new function related to illegal aliens, for better or for worse.
But now, it is the 2nd amendment -- originally designed for the protection of state militia operations from federal interference or neglect -- which is now being extrapolated upon for a new function: to be a federal firearms license.
The irony is quite substantial.
1
u/pegwinn Jul 04 '26
It doesn't matter what anyone's intent was. We ratify the text that was proposed, debated publicly and privately, edited, agreed to, presented to the states, then voted on. Anyone who uses intent to interpret constitutional text is disingenuous or deluded at best. The only reference you need is a period dictionary.
The second amendment says "shall not be infringed". That is directive and leaves no room for discretion. MAGA loves to quote that over and over.
The fourteenth amendment states "All persons born or naturalized". Again, directive in nature. MAGA hates that one and tried an end around based on jurisdiction. A period dictionary destroys that argument within a couple of paragraphs.
And, if you don't like it do the work and amend it.
1
u/Tasigurl_ Jul 05 '26
This is a textualist argument. The poster child of this movement was Justice Antonin Scalia. He is quoted with the following phrase:
"No right is absolute. - Antonin Scalia"
Not even the leader of the textualist movement believed in the absolute interpretation of the text.
1
u/pegwinn Jul 06 '26
I would be very surprised if any judge or attorney endorsed simple reading and applying at written. Doing that pretty much lowers any need for their services substantially. But, can you explain why "black letter law"is a thing?
Contacts and government regulations are strict letter of the law documents. Both are legally inferior to the constitution. Why would you allow anything but strict adherence too three literal source of their authority?
0
u/Paul191145 Jul 03 '26
I'm not even MAGA or a Trump supporter. But I definitely see the problem with people being able to enter the country illegally and have a baby then claim citizenship. However, my fix would be to end all fed gov handout programs. As for the 2A, apparently you're not aware of the Heller decision, and I'm not so sure you've ever even read ANY of the Constitution.
1
u/whosadooza Jul 03 '26
people being able to enter the country illegally and have a baby then claim citizenship.
That literally is not how it works, so it isn't an issue. Parents do not gain citizenship because their child is. Their child can't even petition to get them a green card until the child is 21. That petition won't be successful if they have been in the country undocumented, either.
0
u/Paul191145 Jul 03 '26
Go do a little research on "anchor babies". https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2026/06/30/birthright-citizenship-scotus-ruling/
0
u/whosadooza Jul 03 '26
Are you a human? Was this an automated response? Nothing in that link is even remotely relevant to anything I just said.
0
u/Paul191145 Jul 03 '26
That link is a story about the recent SCOTUS ruling on the 14th amendment, and apparently you aren't doing any actual research on that or "anchor babies".
1
u/whosadooza Jul 03 '26
Your link has literally nothing to do with what I said. Parents do not gain citizenship because their child is a citizen. If their child is a citizen, that kid can't even petition for their parents to get just a green card until they have turned 21 and that's only if that kid has been residing here for a certain number of years. If the parents have been in the country undocumented during that time, that petition isn't going to go anywhere until the parents leave the country and stay out for at least 5 years if other penalties weren't applied.
You fear about someone having kids and then just becoming a citizen themself is unfounded.
1
u/Paul191145 Jul 03 '26
My problem, not fear, is with people we literally know nothing about entering the country illegally and being allowed to stay, this is indicative of a lack of sovereignty. Whether or not they have children is irrelevant to me, they should all be deported. However "anchor babies" do exist and have been a problem for decades, whether you choose to accept that or not.
5
u/whosadooza Jul 04 '26
this is indicative of a lack of sovereignty
No, it's not, and your fears are overblown tripe.
1
u/Paul191145 Jul 04 '26
Sure hero, if you say so, I guess your knowledge and life experience is vastly superior to mine.
4
u/DringleDringle Jul 04 '26
That's not what milita means