08-21-2019, 11:48 AM
(08-21-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they aren't. They're open to interpretation, not negotiation.
The end result is still the same, and either can be applied, here.
(08-21-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your view is a very dangerous one as it will be the first amendment they come for after the second.
Our First Amendment rights are already limited.
(08-21-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for your balance, the Framers were very clear that liberty trumps public safety.
Public welfare, which is more broad and all encompassing than safety. Sacrificing liberty for safety/security is a conservative position, liberty for equity is a liberal one. Both fall under welfare. Anyway, if liberty truly trumped public safety, you really wouldn't have a job as most of the laws on the books to promote a civil society and that it is your job to enforce would be non-existent as they would be deemed unconstitutional.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
