Agreed. It is indeed a matter of interpretation, especially when people lose their way.
That is why I regularly look up the etymology of words to discover where certain modern meanings come from. In modern vernacular, we often use words without actually knowing what it really means.
To abridge seems quite clear. in modern vernacular we would perhaps use the imagery of short circuit, which technically, is a from of abridge.
The example of section 230, which technically, does not put limits on speech and travel, meeting, petition, etc, (Amend. I) in it's current operation does so. Hence, the need to rescind this section, as congress should act according to the Amendment.
The same goes for infringe. "to damage, break off, break, bruise". So, when a law is passed that requires registration background checks containing the option to deny the exercise of the 2nd A, there is no authority to make such a law, let alone that is has any legal standing. It is defacto null and void.
Scotus can argue all they want. For instance: rights are not absolute, but State interest supersede such.
Sure, State interest exist. See Amend. X. But, given the federation being an amalgamation of States and People, it follows that States Rights and union Rights are of a lower nature than People's rights.
Putting that on it's head (1902 Scotus on forced vaxxination ) is an affront. Bit yeah, that is the nature of interpretation. The plain language in the C not withstanding.
Agreed. It is indeed a matter of interpretation, especially when people lose their way.
That is why I regularly look up the etymology of words to discover where certain modern meanings come from. In modern vernacular, we often use words without actually knowing what it really means.
To abridge seems quite clear. in modern vernacular we would perhaps use the imagery of short circuit, which technically, is a from of abridge.
The example of section 230, which technically, does not put limits on speech and travel, meeting, petition, etc, (Amend. I) in it's current operation does so. Hence, the need to rescind this section, as congress should act according to the Amendment.
The same goes for infringe. "to damage, break off, break, bruise". So, when a law is passed that requires registration background checks containing the option to deny the exercise of the 2nd A, there is no authority to make such a law, let alone that is has any legal standing. It is defacto null and void.
Scotus can argue all they want. For instance: rights are not absolute, but State interest supersede such.
Sure, State interest exist. See Amend. X. But, given the federation being an amalgamation of States and People, it follows that States Rights and union Rights are of a lower nature than People's rights.
Putting that on it's head (1902 Scotus on forced vaxxination ) is an affront. Bit yeah, that is the nature of interpretation. The plain language in the C not withstanding.
I found the discussion by Marc Passio on the 2nd to be quite informatative and conducive towards an original understanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM