It is my belief that there are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."
A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government.
It took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress.
Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee.
No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words no and not employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.
We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support.
« Previous 1 » Next