Middle ground can only be achieve with an amendment to the Constitution. Any legislation, even though it may be bipartisan, would still have to pass muster with the Constitution. Legislation must be constitutional first and foremost.
Middle ground can only be achieve with an amendment to the Constitution. Any legislation, even though it may be bipartisan, would still have to pass muster with the Constitution. Legislation must be constitutional first and foremost.
Why can’t it be a federal law like any other? (Serious question- plenty of laws are enacted which don’t have to be an amendment to the Constitution- which would be a massive hurdle getting states to ratify it. We can barely get laws passed as it is.)
If a bipartisan bill was passed in the House, the Senate and signed by POTUS that made gun ownership illegal, in a sense - took away the right to bare arms, any citizen would be in their right to challenge this new law all the way up to SCOTUS. And would likely win. The Constitution has primacy. Federal laws cannot supersede the Constitution. What this means, is that those laws you speak of must either clearly not violate the Constitution or are so murky that no one sought to litigate the matter up to SCOTUS.
I see how that would work for gun laws, when guns are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but I still wonder if it would be necessary here when SCOTUS just ruled the court shouldn’t have taken a stance on abortion already, and sent it to the states. But maybe you’re right! Thank you for explaining what you meant a bit more.
Middle ground can only be achieve with an amendment to the Constitution. Any legislation, even though it may be bipartisan, would still have to pass muster with the Constitution. Legislation must be constitutional first and foremost.
Why can’t it be a federal law like any other? (Serious question- plenty of laws are enacted which don’t have to be an amendment to the Constitution- which would be a massive hurdle getting states to ratify it. We can barely get laws passed as it is.)
If a bipartisan bill was passed in the House, the Senate and signed by POTUS that made gun ownership illegal, in a sense - took away the right to bare arms, any citizen would be in their right to challenge this new law all the way up to SCOTUS. And would likely win. The Constitution has primacy. Federal laws cannot supersede the Constitution. What this means, is that those laws you speak of must either clearly not violate the Constitution or are so murky that no one sought to litigate the matter up to SCOTUS.
I see how that would work for gun laws, when guns are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but I still wonder if it would be necessary here when SCOTUS just ruled the court shouldn’t have taken a stance on abortion already, and sent it to the states. But maybe you’re right! Thank you for explaining what you meant a bit more.