Is the Bill of Rights Absolute?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

by: Brent Smith

Scroll Down for Audio Version

When speaking about the Second Amendment, Lunchbox Joe Biden recently said that “no amendment is absolute.”

Well Lunchbox. If you mean that amendments are not perfect and not beyond change – then you’re right. But if Joe, or whoever wrote what Joe was reading, means that amendments can just be restricted or limited by a single executive’s edict, by legislative action, or just ignored all together, he is dead wrong.

And we all know what he means. It’s the latter, not the former.

This appears to me to be a new tact of the left.

Many States are enacting legislation in direct defiance of proposed unconstitutional federal crackdowns on firearms. In other words, the left’s attacks on guns are actually backfiring.

So rather than just attacking guns, which hasn’t really gotten them anywhere, they appear to be shifting the narrative and instead intend on attacking the Second Amendment itself. But it also appears, at least to start, that they will try not to single out just the one Amendment. This is why Biden said that “no amendment is absolute,” rather than specify just the Second, their real target.

This Statement by Biden is likely the first volley from the left to change the narrative of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I would expect this to begin being repeated again and again until the ill-informed public starts to believe it’s so. It is, after all, the left’s standard mode of operation. Just keep repeating something until you confuse the populace into thinking up is down, right is wrong, etc.

It’s possible that many conservatives think that the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, are in fact ‘absolute’ – that they are written in stone, so to speak.

Rumble:

I disagree, or rather, I agree with Lunchbox Joe. In fact, thanks to Article V, no amendment is absolute.

And I think I’m in pretty good company on this.

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson thought on the subject. I think most would agree that old Tom was more intelligent than me, you, Lunchbox and all his handlers combined.

Jefferson wrote a letter to Samuel Kercheval on July 12, 1816. In it he wrote, rather disapprovingly, that, “Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, & deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched…”

YouTube:

He counted himself as NOT one those men. In other words, he meant that we are indeed free to “touch,” alter, or modify our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, as long as it’s done within the confines of the rules contained in the aforementioned Article V.

But what we are not free to do is to ignore them.

However, this is precisely what the left has done since the dawn of the progressive era – ignore the text of the Constitution. Instead they try to devise workarounds, or try to convince the citizenry of America to trust them rather than their own eyes and the text of the document itself.

And this, I believe, is what they may try to do with the Second Amendment. How they will do it is anyone’s guess. But what I do know, is if they are successful, then it’s on to the others, like the First.