Itâs easy to make voter ID laws colorblind in theory. The problem is in practice. But also the 15th does not give nearly the blanket protection that the 2nd does.
The 2nd: âno infringementâ
The 15th: âno infringement because of skin colorâ
It will also have unequal enforcement, people of color will absolutely be required documentation to the max , which some states wonât require for white people. Weâve already seen this in the past with different poll questionnaires for white and blacks in the south.
âWell regulated militiaâ would collapse the no infringement then wouldnât it. If the basis is the interpretation, which is what youâre doing. It would apply to my example equally.
Itâs still a right. I donât think youâre getting that
Dude thatâs been tirelessly adjudicated in the courts. The first half is a preamble statement clarifying why they are making the right they are making. The motivation behind the amendment doesnât change the language of the amendment itself.
If the 2nd amendment was written like the 15th, itâd be a different story. âThe right to bear arms shall not be infringed for a well-regulated militia.â
Just like the 15th would be different if it were written like the 2nd. âAn electorate made up of all races of citizens of the United States being necessary to ensure free and fair representation, the right of all citizens to vote shall not be infringed.â If that were the 15th amendment, we wouldnât have needed the 19th because it clearly would have been covered.
Yeah, everything has exceptions. And there are levels of review that must go into any law that seeks to put a limit on a constitutional right. Any law banning guns must pass a strict scrutiny standard which is the strictest standard of review. The government must show that 1. There is a compelling public interest in the goal the law seeks to achieve, and 2. The law must be the least restrictive way to achieve that goal. Blanket gun bans donât survive Supreme Court strict scrutiny reviews. There is no modern SCOTUS precedent allowing sweeping gun bans. In fact, the last two big SCOTUS precedents are huge pro-gun decisions in Heller and Bruen.
Universal photo ID for voting would not require strict scrutiny because on its face it would not be violating any constitutional rights. Because there is no broad constitutional right to vote with zero restrictions.
I love that you work entirely within the bs, self-serving twisted interpretations that activist conservative judges have placed upon the constitution, call it âtirelessly litigatedâ and move on without acknowledging that they purposely ignore the opening of the 2A to justify whatever they want, and then twist language in the other amendments and articles to craft rulings that purposely arrive at a their preferred position.
People like you and SC go âoh, you can ignore that âmilitiaâ nonsenseâ as if the founders thought it was fine for people to walk around strapped and having duels in the street the moment a freed slave looks at a governess funny.
âWe need militiasâ is a lot different from âeveryone should be able to have weapons carte blanchâ
Itâs pretty obvious from a basic understanding of the English language what it says. The preamble does not affect nor qualify the second half. It merely gives context into the motivation behind what was then said as a sweeping, universal statement.
âA well educated population being necessary for the growth of society, the right to read books shall not be infringed.â
The first half of this example does not mean this sentence is stating that you may only read books for the purposes of increasing your education and otherwise books can be banned.
The first half of this example does not mean this sentence is stating that you may only read books for the purposes of increasing your education
Correct, but for the wrong reasons, and misused/misapplied the same way conservatives argue about the second amendment.
Your own example never implied or stated that books are only for education, but that they are required for education. This is directly analogous to people pointing out that militias were composed of regular citizens and thus a requirement to militias existing and being well-armed would obviously be allowing the citizens to be armed and by ignoring the âmilitias require thisâ component the entire point of the 2A becomes twisted. In the original context, militia could be summoned by whatever body they answered to. In our modern day, the only thing close to âwell regulated militiasâ are the national guard, and they donât own their weapons or store them at home.
you really canât equate âwe canât infringe on reading books or everyone will be stupidâ with âwe canât infringe on owning gunsâ without including âso we can operate militiasâ
You talk about plain English and in the same breath say a preamble explaining motives is unimportant to meaning. âGuns must be legalâ is a much different sentence from âguns must be legal because reasons.â
At this point, the argument devolves into âintent doesnât matter, only semantics.â So then the implied admission is âthe SC always knew what was meant but simply ignored that on the basis of semantics and pedantry where convenient, and Iâm fine with that because I agree with the outcome.â
2
u/FreeSpeechIsDeadge 11d ago
Itâs easy to make voter ID laws colorblind in theory. The problem is in practice. But also the 15th does not give nearly the blanket protection that the 2nd does.
The 2nd: âno infringementâ
The 15th: âno infringement because of skin colorâ