The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
It's been my understanding that the original Bill of Rights cannot be screwed with, as they were required to get the Constitution ratified by the states. So, attacks against it are the same as attacking the Constitution itself. It's of a piece. Mess with it, we have to start from scratch. 1776 redux, anyone?
Morally correct, but there's no legal basis for saying that the Bill of Rights isn't subject to Article V. There's only one part of the Constitution that's legally exempt from amendment or repeal, and that's the equal representation of states in the Senate.
Might just cause another revolution, but it wouldn't be an argument you could even begin to raise in a court without being laughed at.
"The Laws of Nature and Nature's God are holding on conference call. They'd like a word with you."
Ah, but what advantage we now have on those who would attempt to amend out the 2nd. Previously, the strategy was elimination by judicial fiat - and it came dangerously close to working. You know they haven't got a hope in hell of amending the Constitution to eliminate something that 44 State Constitutions guarantee.
As a citizen of Illinois, I've got to say that there is Chicago (a great city with great food and [usually] great people) and then there is the rest of the state...
McHenry Co. Sportsmen bring Turner Trice to task.
This is one of the states where the battle is still being actively waged! (That said, when I finally get things in order and get the chance to move to AZ, I'm outta here...)
I think part of the problem is that modern thinking doesn't distinguish between "justice" and "morality." As a result, it tries to shoehorn the latter into the former, with formulations such as "social justice" etc. This necessitates codifying as rights (by hook or by crook) concepts that properly are not part of a system of justice.
Just reading through Robert Nozick for the first time. In his formulation of "justice of holdings" (his preferred term for what is usually called "distributive justice") it would be just for a man to choose not to give food to another man who was starving. I highly doubt, however, that Nozick would think it right.
But when you lose sight of the distinction between the two, and try to enshrine the moral precepts of kindness and charity in the process of law, you open the door to making any changes you want. And so people have.
I think another part of the problem is that many people, many lawmakers among them, cannot distinguish between "justice" and "revenge". See nearly all of Civil Rights law later than the original 1964 Act.
Gah, that's what I get for spouting off before finishing Nozick. In his discussion of the "Lockean proviso" on property rights, he does indeed provide grounds to force the man with food to feed the one without. But he does so not by inventing a new right, but by stating the (starkly limited) circumstances in which property rights are overridden.
Um, or not. Okay, I'll shut up for a while...
Chicago's 1982 gun ban passed because the Mob wanted it that way.
The Alderman who spearheaded and fixed the Gun-Ban vote was a "made man" who also fixed murder trials.
Like New York's Sullivan Act banning guns, it had nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with Mob safety.
Things could get interesting when two sided don't play by the same set of rules. Maybe we need to do some "asymmetric litigation" to insure success - as one site suggests, because of that connection Chicago's ordinance may fall under RICO.