Comment by amanaplanacanal

Comment by amanaplanacanal 14 hours ago

11 replies

View on Hacker News

I'm interested: the only one that I can think of that has some limitations is the second amendment? Are there others?

As to the first amendment: Although not equal to that of adults, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection." Only in relatively narrow and limited circumstances can the government restrict kids' rights when it comes to protected speech. (Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975).)

jfengel 13 hours ago

Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age.

And don't say "because it's insane for kids to buy deadly weapons" because that doesn't seem to figure into any other part of second amendment interpretation.

Reply View 8 replies
  • etchalon 13 hours ago

    Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it.

    Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.

    Reply View 5 replies
    • immibis 30 minutes ago

      IIRC didn't the courts empower themselves to interpret the constitution? Nothing in the constitution says they can. Of course, since they interpret the constitution, they can just insert an interpretation that says they interpret the constitution...

      Reply View 0 replies
    • mothballed 13 hours ago

      True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed forces."

      If they could interpret the constitution and that was that, then the judicial branch would basically have ultimate power and be exempted from the checks the other branches have on them.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • lovich 11 hours ago

        That’s called a constitutional crisis and then gets into bringing guns out to see who’s really in charge.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • etchalon 10 hours ago

        They very much are not bound to ignore the courts. That's not a thing. That's very explicitly not a thing. Why would you think that's a thing?

        Reply View 0 replies
  • mothballed 13 hours ago

    That didn't happen until 1968 and by that time the constitution was basically toilet paper. The answer is ever since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) era the constitution was more of a guideline, occasionally quoted by judges much like you can quote the bible to support pretty much anything if you twist it enough.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • wqaatwt 5 hours ago

      > since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that)

      Wasn’t it the other way around? E.g. the fir amendment was pretty much ignored (barely a guideline) by everyone almost until the 1900s.

      Even the founders themselves discarded it almost entirely just a few years after the constitution was ratified..

      Reply View 0 replies
lovich 11 hours ago

The Bong hits 4 Jesus case[1] clarified that minors don’t have full first amendment rights since they are compelled to attend school, and government employees can punish them for their speech.

My memory is failing me for the relevant case name but I’m also fairly sure students don’t have full 4th amendment rights, again because they are compelled to attend school and the government employees are allowed to search them at any time

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

Reply View 1 reply