That is my understanding as well, so I am curious to why the title doesn’t reflect that, and instead makes it appear that constitutional amendments are at stake, unless it’s merely agitprop.
Biden's trying to use executive orders to restrict gun rights therefore bypassing the protections of the constitution. His defense of this action is "no amendment is absolute." But they do absolutely prohibit him from doing the very thing he is ordering. That's the core of the issue. He's not amending the constitution, he's saying despite the amendment protecting those rights he has the sole authority to restrict those amendments.
See Article V of the Constitution. What does it say? Can the Constitution be amended? Is there a process?
That’s correct. The comment he made was about amendments, not EOs
That is my understanding as well, so I am curious to why the title doesn’t reflect that, and instead makes it appear that constitutional amendments are at stake, unless it’s merely agitprop.
Biden's trying to use executive orders to restrict gun rights therefore bypassing the protections of the constitution. His defense of this action is "no amendment is absolute." But they do absolutely prohibit him from doing the very thing he is ordering. That's the core of the issue. He's not amending the constitution, he's saying despite the amendment protecting those rights he has the sole authority to restrict those amendments.
Gotcha. Context is everything.
I thought the ones they were erroding were effectively nullified by the tenth amendment.
But you know the one that is most absolute is the one that they keep shredding.
The courts used to say something else.