Quote:
Quote:
Yes. By design. If a new law (the word "new" in the amendment is important) decreases or restricts freedom, it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court, and anyone who went to prison for violating this law would have to be released. That's exactly the outcome I want. So, for example, if a new law made abortion a crime, the Supreme Court would be obligated to strike down that law, due to the Freedoms Amendment.
Wouldn't it also apply if new forms of fraud or activities were also made illegal but them being illegal is a benefit to society on net?
We could add a parenthetical like this: "(The foregoing does not apply to new laws forbidding victimization of others.)"
Quote:
Quote:
The single most important thing about the United States is that we uphold and defend freedom. That's the hill we must be willing to die on. Whether the Christian Right likes it or not.
I mean I suppose so, although to me freedom can have a vastly different meaning to different people. A libertarian for instance views their freedom as protection from government that they do not wish to grant any power.
I lean libertarian.
Quote:
I am more towards the other end where I think part of a government's primary goal is to work to improve the life of those who live within it. I see upholding freedoms as part of that, but I also see various actions as net goods while a libertarian would see them as violations of their freedoms.
Building infrastructure, providing a safety net, and facilitating upward mobility through things like education are all laudable goals, but first we need to be protected from tyranny. It's not either/or. It's first, second, third, fourth. First is freedom.
