All good points, but remember, not everyone is such a scholar of the peoples rights.
Give the guy a break;)
I understood what he meant and Bob's point was well taken as intended:thumbsup:

There was no "mistake" made, just a generalized comment.
I'm well aware of which way effluent flows:D

We as a country, still rely on Supreme Court rulings to interpret those meanings. If that were not the case, "we the people" could just ignore thier rulings, go about touting the constitution and it's 2nd ammendment (in this case), and tell the feds to shove it:thumbsup:
:wavey:BATF (not that this would be a bad thing), and Hello states rule!

While that is in essence taking place now in some states, and it's worked out well for some, without the courts rulings, we might also find ourselves in a mess some states have with no real gun owners protections:NoNo:

So yes, the Supreme Court does have an impact on the Constitution in that sense.

Well, I wasn't there, but I don't think even they could have envisioned how badly "We the People" could let things get so fouled up:nonod:

Our laws have must be compliant within Constitutional guidelines.

As you mentioned, the Constitution provides for a guideline, a "rulebook" if you will, of the powers allocated to the states vs. the federal government.

And as we've all seen over the years, we have had laws, ordinances, and other legal actions, that have been passed, executed, etc, and only later been ruled "unconsitutional" by the Supreme Court.

Happen to notice a common thread in the above?

While not in disagreement with you over this, there's the real world and how things really work.

I once lived an idiealistic lifestyle.
I used to believe in the "system, in "justice", honor and integrity, and the thought that truth and good will always win out over evil...Then came the whole, growing up thing.
Becoming a LEO, working in the criminal and civil "justice" systems for 30+ years, yada yada yada....and the realization that "things" don't always work out as they "should", that "right" or "good" does not always win out over evil, and that
those we sometimes place in positions of power, respect and high regard, are sometimes the very people that use those powers and positions to subvert the system they're charged to protect:thumbsdown: (As you have personally seen in a certain BOI and another thread).
Sometimes, it's just about the $$$$.

And all the idealistic bravado in the world won't necessarily make things happen the way they should or in a reasonable time frame.:nonod:

So yes, the Constitution should be taken on it's face value, and opinions "shouldn't" change the meaning of the constitution...but they do.
And those opinions affect us drastically.

Again, "we the people" have allowed "our" government, to install a small group of men and women with the power to change our lives for better or worse, the power to interpret the meaning and intent of the Constitution, and determine it's applicability to the states and federal government, and ultimately, to us, and to remain in those positions essentially for LIFE:thumbsdown:

"We" have in as much said, that these men and women, through thier education and training, are smarter than us, and better able to understand and interpret, what the Constitution means and it's applicability.:nonod:

Indians? Indians? WTF!?
That's hillarious..albeit sadly hillarious, still hillarious, that a teacher would come up with this sort of nonsense and be allowed to teach it.:nonod:

On the flip side, since none of us were there, we can only assume (based of course on other writings and supporting documentation) the forefathers intent when they drafted the Constitution, and that's what's taught in school. At least it's supported!:thumbsup:

Your points are well taken:thumbsup:

Thanks for the backup Shadow but what I said was correct.

"The Bil of Rights confirms that we have that right. What if that confirmation wasn't in there? You're both saying the same thing. " I'm not going to debate verbiage and I know what each of you meant.

Rich started a good thread here but I would much prefer discussing how to keep my pants up while carrying. :D That's in another thread.

Actually, the US Constitution did not just pop out of a vacuum, and there are many MANY writings of the time available to fully explain and detail what was on the framers' minds when the Constitution was drafted and then accepted. These writings include the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself. There really isn't much assumption necessary to see what they had in mind at the time. It's been pretty well spelled out.

As for the SCOTUS, hell, WHO hires them and WHO writes out their paychecks? The Supreme Court justices are not picked by the people, they are picked by the very agency they were designed to protect US from. To start off with, do you think that the government is seriously going to "hire" someone who shows a propensity to seriously try to throw a monkey wrench into their goals?

Ok, I'm going to have a John Lennon moment here and hopefully it won't bite me in the azz.
It's like the Bible. We wern't there to witness it, but I still believe it:thumbsup:

:lmao::lmao:a vacuum:lmao::lmao:
I think you misunderstood my point. Oh well, we're saying the same thing:thumbsup:

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?
Regardless, you can't put your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist.

And on occasion, they do something right:thumbsup:

So in a round about way, we're still saying (somewhat) the same thing.:thumbsup:

:lmao:We've done it before:lmao:

Untill I complete a typing class to jump in with Rich & Gordon,
I,m dropping back to the question, and agreeing with Ironhorse & ALS on this one!

Smart azz:nanana::lmao:
Gotta agree with ya:thumbsup:

Goes along with "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission."

Oh, and it's always warm in Costa Rica:D

Oh, and to add to Costa Rica, the woman are awsome...:D

:D