This came up on POTUS (Sirius/XM channel 124) the other day:
why are amendments to the constitution 1 and 3 thru-whatever almost invariably advocated to be construed as broadly as possible (at least on the left side, I'd say the 'pubs might be a little soft on 13th) and the second as narrowly as possible ?
I also note, when I was a member of the Illinois ACLU (really!) the question came up frequently regarding the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment. The answer then, and to this day I assume, came down from on high (Nadine Strossen?) that the Second was so important the ACLU wouldn't touch it and would forever let a special organization, (the NRA) handle it exclusively.
Maybe I'm finding that answer a little snarky and dated these days . . .
why are amendments to the constitution 1 and 3 thru-whatever almost invariably advocated to be construed as broadly as possible (at least on the left side, I'd say the 'pubs might be a little soft on 13th) and the second as narrowly as possible ?
I also note, when I was a member of the Illinois ACLU (really!) the question came up frequently regarding the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment. The answer then, and to this day I assume, came down from on high (Nadine Strossen?) that the Second was so important the ACLU wouldn't touch it and would forever let a special organization, (the NRA) handle it exclusively.
Maybe I'm finding that answer a little snarky and dated these days . . .
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.