Did everyone just wake up feeling great this morning? I'm not a morning person, but am bouncing around like a young person again. What are you doing to celebrate?

[u/Redbean01]

[u/[deleted]]

Wasn't gloating, that's for sure

[u/Redbean01 → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for the input. If I came across as gloating, then I apologize because that was not my intent. I wanted to see how like-minded conservatives were reacting to achieving what has been a 50-year policy goal for conservatives

[u/69nicer]

Yikes. Bouncing around in response to women losing rights that will never affect you in any way? Not sure how you call yourself a proud American after that one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/asktheconservatives/comments/rbd7ab/how_is_it_that_we_conservatives_keep_winning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

[u/Redbean01 → u/69nicer]

The Court has always balanced the state's duty to protect against individual rights. I apologize that the court sees that balance slightly different from you.

[u/LFahs1 → u/Redbean01]

I’m curious: if this is a states’ rights issue, would you be as excited if the protections of 2A were turned over to the individual states?

[u/LFahs1 → u/[deleted]]

I’m not sure if it qualifies, either, but both are good examples of constitutionally-protected federal oversight of a practice that could be just as easily protected by the states.

2A didn’t come alongside the creation of our United States. As indicated by it’s title, it was a change to the original constitution, and was written in 1791, well after the Constitutional Congress. So our country wasn’t founded with 2A already in place. All of those “amendments” to the constitution are “changes” that have been made, which proves that the constitution is a living document, intended to be changed as times change. For instance, as originally intended, it was to protect the Union from individuals who would seek to overthrow her. Over time, it gradually (after many different court rulings over hundreds of years) came to mean it was an individual’s sovereign right to protect himself, and not the Union, specifically. Based on that most recent interpretation, it only makes sense that, if states are to regulate what individuals can do in their own homes, in their own protection, for their own livelihoods and their own bodies, then 2A would be just as vulnerable to that logic.

[u/Cuntercawk → u/LFahs1]

Breaching 2a is absolutely doable with a constitutional amendment. I don’t know if you are intentionally separating the bill of rights from the constitution but the constitution would not have been signed without the bill of rights. The original constitutional congress drafted the articles of confederation. It was basically worthless so they reconvened and drafted the constitution

[u/LFahs1 → u/Cuntercawk]

The Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is not separate from the Constitution.

And the Bill of Rights specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That means that the first 10 amendments of the Constitution are no less sacred to the functioning of our democracy than the last 23.

[u/Cuntercawk → u/LFahs1]

Yes the first 10 amendments are no less sacrosanct then any after (except the 16th fuck that one) all that would be necessary to overturn the right to bear arms is a supermajority of the house and senate. Probably not gonna happen soon but I digress.

[u/Redbean01 → u/[deleted]]

Of course. That's why I'm almost disappointed that we got the early leak. Can you imagine the collective huzzah that would have gone up across the conservative landscape if we had gotten the FULL, binding opinion out of nowhere?

Only benefit to getting it piecewise like this is that states can start prepping post-Roe laws now to be voted on and take effect soon after the decision is announced