I want to start this with stating that I seriously despise long posts on antisocial media. I don't read them. I had originally started this as an antisocial media post, but I realized that was pointless and it was going to be far too long for that platform. So if you don't read this I will not be offended, I expect it. But that being said, I need to get this "out" so I can get some peace back in my mind.
I've been putting this off for several days to see if someone could explain it and make it so that what Joe Biden said doesn't make him look like the biggest IDIOT to ever claim to be President of the United States. "No Amendment is absolute." A very simple statement, which doesn't surprise me given a number of other stupid things he's said in the past 12 years. But here is the matter, as I see it. The Constitution, the very document which authorizes ANYTHING Joe Biden or any President does, is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If that is not the case, then Biden's authority is even less than what those of us who believe in the Constitution think his authority is. The authority of the Constitution is either absolute or it is not. You can't be the "absolute" president of the United States if the document that gives you the authority to be President isn't absolute.
And the Amendments - ALL OF THEM - are part of the Constitution. They are not lesser laws, they are part-and-parcel of the Constitution. They were developed, arbitrated, and ratified in the same Constitutional process as the original, core document was. Saying that any of them is "not absolute" is saying that the Constitution has some superior authority to which it is subservient. The only authority I recognize as superior to the Constitution is a matter of faith, not law.
Next, the Constitution AND ALL OF ITS AMENDMENTS (hereafter referred to as 'it') are specifically to define limit the national government of the United States of America. It does not convey rights or privileges to the sovereign citizens of those United States. It does not convey rights or privileges to the States. It defines the limits within which the national government must remain. Any right or privilege not specifically allowed TO the national government is, by virtue of the nature of the document and explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment, relegated to the States and sovereign citizens. And all laws made by Congress and treaties entered into, are subordinate to the Constitution. In short, these jackasses in Washington have been assuming extra-Constitutional power for so long that most people think that's the way it was designed. It's not. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to tell the national government the bounds it must remain within. Nothing was to limit the freedom, the LIBERTY that was the founding, core principle of everything the Founders of this great nation intended to be passed on in perpetuity. And to put my own interpretation on Ben Franklin's quote, those who would sacrifice the smallest bit of liberty for government-proclaimed security deserve neither. And will soon have neither. As has been proven over the past century of American politics, our national government is very greedy about assuming and taking power wherever it can. In my observation, this has been mostly done by the left. Call them Liberals, Progressives, Marxists, whatever you want - they are people who believe that the State, or government, can solve the day-to-day problems of the citizenry. And to be clear, there are people of this thinking in BOTH of the major parties, and currently holding office, or an appointed position, at all levels of government. This is not just about bashing Democrats, although they seem to have a more vocal contingent that speaks of having authority and goals contrary to the Constitution.
Now, to the thing that has been eating at me. "No Amendment is absolute." Seriously? The abolition of slavery was not absolute? The right to not be forced to testify against yourself, or your spouse, is not absolute? The right of women to vote is not absolute? The right of blacks to vote? The right of all citizens over the age of 18 to vote? And understand, these were not rights that ever should have been needed to be granted IF the national government operated solely within its Constitutional authority. And now Joe Biden wants to gut the 2nd Amendment with his executive actions which have absolutely no scientific, evidential or anecdotal basis in fact. It's all "feel good" ideas by people who want to take even more control and remove constraints that the Founders put in place to prevent this exact thing from happening.
And the push to federalize the election process, and have the federal government oversee/control the election process? Who in hell thinks this is a good idea? Sure, it seems great when YOUR party is going to be able to control and certify the outcome of the next election (as the Dems did in the 2020 election) but what happens when someone with integrity screws up your plans and the OTHER party ends up in control of the elections? This is a bad idea, from the start. The Constitution - in its original text - relegates the running of the elections to the State legislative branches. Not the county election board. Not the Secretary of State. Not the State Supreme Court. The LEGISLATIVE BRANCH of the stete, whatever that state calls it. Anything to the contrary, where the state legislature does not control and has not surrendered its control to an election authority, is unconstitutional. This is how several of the "swing" states ended up going so massively "blue" in the 2020 elections, the election boards, election managers, etc. (people who were not elected to the state legislature) went around the state legislatures to get judicial approval to run elections however they wanted, and in ways that AT THE VERY LEAST had all the appearances of being highly corruptible and producing outcomes that were questionable. And now we have a national government with ONE party in control of the legislative and the executive wanting to take control of the next election. The same party that gained that control in an election that had results that were so contested that thousands of people actually marched at the national capitol in protest of the election results. And honestly, I think there were more protesting the way the elections were run in various places than in the actual results. If the elections had been run in a way that was beyond question, or at least in a way that didn't present itself as highly questionable (like mailing out ballots to people who did not request them and ballot harvesting), I would imagine the crowd in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 would have been much smaller and the "insurrection" against the Capitol Building would never have happened.
Finally, to say that his "executive actions" are constitutional and not in violation of the 2nd Amendment is just flat out disingenuous. There is no way anyone can reconcile that what he is proposing is not an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. And before we get too far into that argument, the 2nd Amendment doesn't GIVE us a right to keep and bear arms. It PROHIBITS the government from infringing upon that natural right of a sovereign human being to possess and utilize the most effective tools available to defend themselves, their families, their property, and their homeland. Anything that violates that natural right is unconstitutional.
So, say what you want in support of Joe Biden and his guffawing sidekick. The fact is that the unrest that has happened, and will likely continue, is the making of their own words and actions since Joe Biden began to campaign for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States.
