(07-09-2024, 09:18 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(07-09-2024, 08:35 AM)Sneakers Wrote: The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.  The 1st Amendment guarantees everyone (even Trump) the right to express his/her own opinions, not only of the document itself, but also of the perceived intent of the Founders.  Gun control and abortion rights are hotly debated on a daily basis and beliefs are often diametrically opposed.  Why not immigration?

Did I say Trump wasn't allowed to talk about immigration or birthright citizenship? Of course he is.  But if he wants to end birthright citizenship, he has to talk about it in terms of amending the constitution.  He cannot simply say "I'll do it!" because for him or anyone else to do it without first amending the constitution is a violation of the constitution.

I'd leave abortion and unborn babies out of it because they're not mentioned in the constitution one way or the other.

Gun control is more similar because the constitution mentions it.  The supreme Court has ruled that there are some limits to your right to have guns.  It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to eliminate gun control laws. It would be in bounds for a candidate to say they want to pass new gun control laws through Congress and see if the courts uphold them.  But it would not be in bounds to say, "elect me and I'll take everyone's guns away" as if that power is vested in the President in the first place.  It's not.  See the difference?