Hey Jacqueau, How many times do I have to prove to you you are wrong again on the rights to bear arms and the militia issue??? You are a broken record. I have shown you proof many times before and as a typical Libtard you will not accept it as SETTLED LAW!!! Get OVER IT!!!Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
I disagree. There is also nothing in the Constitution that states the Gov't cannot assure that every single individual has equal access to health care. I think it's part of the "happiness" factor in the constitution. To me , the Constitution is like the Bible, Koran, Talmud and so forth. They all have grey areas and beg for interpretation, though all should be taken as is, for their writers, I'm sure, did not want anyone to interpret them. Writers of such documents, and this to me is pretty much all of them, did not take evolution of time, its advancements in science, medicine, the arts, the customs, families, etc.
The Constitution, therefore and to me, says nothing about health care, as it did not then exist, any more than it talks about TV, computers, and all that has been invented since then and impact on the citizens' rights. I think, for example, that for the president to be a U.S. citizen born in the US from US parents made sense in 1800. Not today, as there are no British infiltrators around. That was aimed at the Brits. Same for the 2nd Amendment. It mentions members belonging to a militia. Made eminent sense in the late 1700s. No more. And so forth, and that is why there have been amendments. How many to deal with the way things have evolved? Certainly not enough.
We remade our entire constitutin in 1982. 32 years ago. It's already out of date. Goes to show.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
And you wonder why I call these people Libtards?!?