They didn't misplace it, they just don't give a shit about the Constitution when they aren't able to weaponize it in pursuit of their theocratic goals. Every literalist worships their favorite documents right up to the point where they disagree with something it says, and not an centimeter further.
Well, to be fair, most of these Scrotums seem to be in favor of "second amendment solutions".
Pretty much. Antonin Scalia was once asked about the Ninth in interview, and said the following:
Summary: he doesn't believe it is his responsibility as a jurist to enforce the law; the Ninth only requires him to acknowledge that other might have unenumerated rights, not that the Court has any responsibility whatsoever to defend those rights. Everything comes down to what the founders wanted, but he decides on their behalf what that was.
Summary: he ignored it in law school, and disparages it now.
Considering how their last attempt ended, I'd take those odds. But the problem is that no one ever "wins" a modern war, let alone a civil war. We obsess over nuclear bombs, but with or without them, every country in which a war was fought in the last two decades or so is now a barely habitable wasteland. If we want any of our rights and privileges to persist or mean anything, we must find a way to peacefully resolve civil strife. The second two armies mobilize, the country they're in is over.
Certainly not on the battlefield anyhow. But it could be a big and possibly final "win" if the steps that should have been taken after the last civil war were taken after the next one. You know... stuff like reducing the congressional presence of insurrectionist States to one Senator each, having their elections and districting overseen by Congress, creating a penalty structure for cheating or trying to overthrow the government again etc.
Yeah? And that resolved civil strife in the South, did it?
I agree. Bodily autonomy with respect to drug use and prostituition are also fundamental human rights.
Can Congress pass a law forbidding the States from forbidding abortion?
Should we conclude that our system of government does not work? If not, what recourse do we have? Is there any effective recourse?
Of course we should continue trying. But I'd rather see a plan than a vague plea for support. And yes, I know that some Democrats are working on exactly that, albeit far too late to do any good. But I also fully expect those efforts to be sabotaged by fellow Democrats. I'm going to invest my money (and votes) in people and organizations I trust to use them well, not just hand it to the Party as a blank check that I have no reason to assume they will spend prudently.
I believe so.
It would end up at the same Court, if they tried, and end the same way. Full on reversing the effects of this decision is not a plausible immediate goal.
