What do the US & state constitutions say about social aspects of the EvC debate?

So far you have show no, zero, zip, none, nada, zilch exaamples where the Bil of Rights has been tampered with.

Cute response on gun control,

but that is correct, but considering the 14th amendment, I think you cannot have cities and states deny this right either.

On the expansion of federal powers, I don't want to get into it as you already know the answers. If you are serious about discussion of that, you can start another thread listing some specific examples for discussion.

randman writes:I gave you examples where I think rulings have tampered with the Bill of Rights.

How is that dodging you jar?

I gave you examples where I think rulings have tampered with the Bill of Rights.

That's like saying parents are explicitly given the right to raise their kids so if they don't think it's abuse, then no abuse occurs.

The Constition also explicitly gives the right for the president to appoint judges and is one reason that despite Bush's problems, he was still elected president.

He is still the one that appoints them, and one reason Bush won is so that he could appoint judges that would bring back an originalist interpretation to the courts,

and so the courts, if they get out of line, can be corrected over time by the president,

This is an issue that won't go away and will be a losing one for dems.

Americans like less regulations and government.

This is a different subject, but recall the case where they said cities could take private land to give to developers so they can increase their tax base, the recent eminent domain case. The liberals and moderates on the court were all for it. The conservatives were the ones protecting property rights.

You might find if you peel away the propaganda, that a conservative court would be more to your liking.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.....Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory....Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer."