I wonder how politicians who are self-proclaimed “constitutional scholars” decide which amendments are important and which can be ignored.
The First Amendment must not be crucial since lawmakers have no trouble dictating what I can see on my computer, what books can be kept in libraries, and what sort of clothing people are allowed to wear.
However, the Second Amendment apparently must be protected at all costs, to the extent that any individual can obtain any firearm they desire, regardless of their background — be it criminal or not — with no concern for the consequences in terms of lives lost.
It would be fascinating to hear an explanation of why certain parts of the Constitution are optional, while other sections are mandatory. And while we’re at it, perhaps our Utah lawmakers could specifically explain their disdain for the 21st Amendment — you know, the one that repealed prohibition.
Scott Zuckerman, Kamas