Lumpy wrote:Constitutional question: has it ever been argued that two provisions of the constitution are fundamentally in conflict? Because I could see Kalifornia claiming that the entire Second Amendment conflicts with the mandate of the government to establish peace, order and safety. Not that they'd be right but that seems to be the way they think.
If you share the correct understanding of the nature of fundamental rights, they cannot, because rights are inherently negative, and negative rights cannot conflict.
Negative rights enumerate things that cannot be done.
That you can't do X to me and that I cannot do Y for you can never be in conflict.
When Progressivism got its start, almost 200 years ago, they hated the idea of fundamental rights, because it limited the power of government to do good. And they, of course, one they gained power, would only do good, because they were the good guys and they would mean well.
So their initial position was that there were no rights. "Nonsense on stilts" one early Progressive called them. And they found that to be a difficult sell.
Then they had was brilliant idea, they'd come to with a whole bunch of new rights, positive rights, thing that must be given to you. It was part and parcel of their great lie, that Progressivism was the new, improved Liberalism.
Of course , positive rights inherently conflic. What you give to Joe you can't give to Bill. So you need to have some arbiter to decide whose right wins. And this, of course, would be the Progressives in government.
And they expected people not to notice that rights that are granted only at the discretion of government aren't rights at all. That's exactly what they intended.
