Friday Feedback

Well, we made it through another week. Nothing destroyed the world, as we know it.

During WWI, WWII, through the end of the draft, in America, there was a core of people called "conscientious objectors". These were people who were unwilling to kill for any reason.

This became "the thing" to do when you wanted to avoid the draft during Vietnam. Most so-called conscientious objectors were culled during the interview process. The question asked were of the sort: Would you use violence to defend yourself? What would you do if your wife/girlfriend was being raped?

If you answered any of the questions with some sort of violence, you lost your conscientious objector status.

I consider myself to be a constitutional absolutist. The constitution means what it was understood by its plain text at the time it was adopted, with the amendments meaning what the plain text meant when the amendment was ratified.

Text, history, and tradition is the correct method to interpret The Constitution.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the plain text of the Second Amendment.

I've always considered "The People" to include more than just citizens. The Bill of Rights does not mention citizens. It uses "the people", "the accused", "him", "his", "person", "himself", "owner". These are terms that encompass more than just citizens.

So I am torn when I learn of a case where a bad person is found to be part of The People. I don't want bad people to be a part of The People.

This leads to the following for me: It is possible for somebody to be a part of The People and have certain inalienable rights, and still be deported or incarcerated. When they are released, they should have access to their rights returned. If they are deported and return, they still have inalienable rights. We can incarcerate them or deport them again.

[yop_poll id="1"]

Add your thoughts in the comments.