Apparently all these amendments are open to all kinds of BS interpretation by courts, with loopholes like "you don't really expect privacy when you send snail mail", "some random gun freak is the same as a well armed militia", "corporations are people" and other such shenanigans.
I think the correct interpretation of the various amendments is to view them in conjunction with the ninth. That is, the default should be to argue in good faith about what rights the amendment is attempting to preserve, not nit-picking them to find technicalities that the state can use to limit or restrict someone's rights.
Your hint at the 2nd Amendment is one such example: it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. Likewise, the 5th Amendment should be interpreted to allow an individual to refuse anything a court orders him to do that would force him to reveal evidence or testimony that could be used to incriminate him. I would argue that the entire point of that part of the 5th is to prevent exactly what is going on here: torture (involuntary imprisonment without conviction) used to coerce a confession.
Hopefully this issue is decided properly, as we are rapidly approaching a time where it may be possible to do a fMRI-like scan of someone's brain to determine guilt/innocence. Should we allow a court, with only a search warrant, the ability to scan our brain and possibly uncover other evidence of crimes?
This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution.
The second amendment in full is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A well regulated militia is completely dropped from all modern court rulings. Guns can and should be regulated.
That's what we discussed. Given what the constitution says, that ruling is BS.
The law and supreme courts are politics --not some clean, divine, body that comes with only just rulings.
"Liberty and justice for all", for example, if I'm not mistaken, was in there from the beginning, but the courts could not give a rats ass for slavery, segregation, etc, until they were forced to by popular protests.
So, that 2/3 of the congress is not much consolation either.
These are not mutually exclusive, and I personally want people to maintain the right to own guns.
What I don't want is semi-automatic rifles and handguns to be available to the population at large and without any regulation whatsoever so that they can easily be incorporated into some lunatics shooting spree.
I know this will be unpopular: all semi-automatic handguns and rifles should be outlawed.
but cities like new york somehow removed it.
It really doesn't matter, because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Which is exactly the inverse of what it should be: the spirit of the law being above and adjusting the "operative" part.
This was a correct and useful stance - and a fruitful ground for debate - prior to 2010.
However, what matters now is District of Columbia v. Heller[1] and McDonald v. City of Chicago[2] which "held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states".[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
If it is possible to determine that you have encrypted data, and it is possible to verify the accuracy of your testimony, there should be no concern about compelling false testimony.
Which is different from compelling testimony that cannot be verified, at least in the sense that you know that only the people being held in contempt could possibly be innocent.
Maybe the tradeoffs that should.be made in this case are different.
It's also clear it was to buttress the perpetuation of slavery in the minds of founders. So, you know.
It's much like the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in the Bible. It's there in black and white, and about as clear and simple as you can get. Yet plenty of Jews and Christians kill, and often do so eagerly and joyfully, even thinking they are doing God's work. As the old saying goes, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." Or "Onward, Christian soldiers!"
That's an erroneous translation, although I concede it is very common - but rarely if ever found within a Bible as you claim; both the KJV, which I prefer for the music of its language, and the NIV, which is much more common these days, instead correctly render it as "Thou shalt/you shall not murder". I can't speak for Torah, but I doubt it differs there.
The laws of men distinguish mere murder from killing in general, whether it be manslaughter, justifiable homicide, the conduct of warfare, or any of sundry other nuances. Why, then, should the law of God overlook the same distinction?
Because that's old testament morals that have been deprecated by Christ.
That's the whole point of getting a NEW testament.
And Christ is quite clear about the "not kill in general" part.
In general, you're not wrong. In this case, though, you are. Matthew 19:16-19 [1]:
> 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Had Christ intended to modify the commandment to "thou shalt not kill", I expect He would have.
Well, he also gave additional commands and advice of his own to that very effect.
Because apparently the exact name somehow makes the act better (or worse?) in God's eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga_7j72CVlc&t=0m25s
We should go tell Feynman he's nuts...
Not a christian per se, but theoretically speaking, the name is not some mere dressing: it gives the justification (or lack thereof) for the act.
So it makes sense that something described with a different name changes the act in "God's eyes" -- the same way that e.g. killing someone to take their money and killing someone to stop them from killing you are not both "murder".
Besides, what's allowed to humans and what's allowed to God doesn't need to be the same thing. No hypocrisy in that, we're talking about different entities, and nobody said they are equal (on the contrary).
Which of course is not what's being discussed, so we're not going to go off on that tangent.
Hell’s foundations quiver
At the shout of praise;
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise.