4 ms·

tl;dr: it's hypocritical to support one amendment without supporting all of them completely.

• adamnemecek 13y ago
  That's how I read it. I can't believe someone would call that an argument.
• dvanduzer 13y ago
  It's unfortunately common to defend the sancticty of the Constitution, rather than recognize it as a means to preserve values of Liberty and Justice for all.
• jwoah12 13y ago
  Yeah, this one really got me: > Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others? Yup.
• hvs 13y ago
  If your argument is that you only support individual items that you "like" in the bill of rights, what is your argument for supporting any of them? Either they all deserve to be defended, or the argument just devolves into "I support that because it might affect me!"
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    This is crazy talk. There's absolutely no reason the constitution couldn't be right about some things and wrong about others.
    • phdp 13y ago
      But our elected officals are sworn to uphold the constitution, not what they feel is right and wrong about it. If something is wrong, it has to be amended. Until then, it isn't crazy.
      • dllthomas 13y ago
        Something isn't amended by divine providence; it's amended by enough people opposing it relative to the number that support it. Saying you have to support it until it's amended is crazy talk. Saying you have to abide by it is something else entirely.
• illuminate 13y ago
  "tl;dr: it's hypocritical to support one amendment without supporting all of them completely." More specifically without supporting every "constitutional literalist"'s interpretation of them. Because, obviously like any proper religion, there's only one possible interpretation and it's held by the person who has it right. All others are heresy and lies.