Replies

The Article 6 supremacy clause does bind the judges of every state to the U.S. Constitution. However, before Amendment 14, Amendments 1 through 8 were meant to restrict powers of the federal government, not the states.

You will hear the Supremacy Clause / Bill of Rights argument over and over, but mere repetition, even from valued sources, does not make it the correct reading. I recommend that everyone interested in genuine understanding of the U.S. Constitution do the work, read the history, and judge this question for themselves.

Here's an alternate interpretation. Inalienable rights should never be abridged by any government, county, state, or federal. Any governing entity which we can hold worthy should limit itself. Any Constitution should reiterate that inalienable rights will not be abridged. Secondly, denying the people a right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) clearly leaves a way open for governmental oppression. Therefore we cannot approve of any constitution which does not clearly establish it.

California's constitution being such a one is a gross violation and deserves our condemnation.

Now, as to whether Amendments 1-8 of the U.S. Constitution apply through the states. SCOTUS has taken a cafeteria style approach, treating enumerated rights individually, as to whether or not Amendment 14 incorporates the given right. Some say complete incorporation would be much more logical. This would mean that the Supreme Court precedents establish exactly the same protections against state encroachment as they do national encroachment, except where a state establishes even greater protection.

My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial. I would prefer the country to be finally responsible for protecting its inhabitants from encroachments of national power, and states be responsible to protect their own inhabitants from encroachments of state power. When they fail to, the people must hold them directly accountable, not in every case run to federal "daddy" (except in specific situations described in Amendment 14).

My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of rights interpretation. The people are via the jury system. It is the right and obligation of every juror on every trial in the nation to judge the law for compliance to the constitution at the same time as they judge the facts.

This concept of jury nullification was basic to the design of our national government by the founders.

I don't really see amendment 14 having any real effect on Bill of Rights, other than 14 kept states from creating laws that would keep individuals from being considered citizens (i.e., black folks). When the constitution confers a right to an "individual", then a state cannot arbitrarily trample that right - such as in the 2nd amendment.

There is nothing in the 14th that nullifies/voids the 10th. -- It merely makes clear that states cannot violate our individual rights as outlined in the rest of the constitution.
States have never had the delegated power to infringe upon our enumerated/ unenumerated rights, -- as is made clear by the preamble to the BOR's, -- which states that "when ratified", - it is, - " to be valid for all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution".

Article VI states that our Constitution: "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therby; --"

Your ideas about "states rights" are being used by states like CA to violate our 2nd amendment, by prohibiting so-called 'assault weapons'.

The Article 6 supremacy clause does bind the judges of every state to the U.S. Constitution.
However, before Amendment 14, Amendments 1 through 8 were meant to restrict powers of the federal government, not the states.

You are ignoring the preambles words. The BOR's were meant to restrict the powers of all of our governments, local, state, territorial & federal..

You will hear the Supremacy Clause / Bill of Rights argument over and over, but mere repetition, even from valued sources, does not make it the correct reading.

Just as your repetition does not make your position the correct reading. -- The words of the documents speak for themselves.

I recommend that everyone interested in genuine understanding of the U.S. Constitution do the work, read the history, and judge this question for themselves. Here's an alternate interpretation. Inalienable rights should never be abridged by any government, county, state, or federal. Any governing entity which we can hold worthy should limit itself. Any Constitution should reiterate that inalienable rights will not be abridged. Secondly, denying the people a right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) clearly leaves a way open for governmental oppression. Therefore we cannot approve of any constitution which does not clearly establish it. California's constitution being such a one is a gross violation and deserves our condemnation.

Our existing constitution condemns CA's violation. We need to see that it is enforced.

Now, as to whether Amendments 1-8 of the U.S. Constitution apply through the states. SCOTUS has taken a cafeteria style approach, treating enumerated rights individually, as to whether or not Amendment 14 incorporates the given right. Some say complete incorporation would be much more logical. This would mean that the Supreme Court precedents establish exactly the same protections against state encroachment as they do national encroachment, except where a state establishes even greater protection.

Some say that 'incorporation' is a legality, a sham that is un-needed. -- States have never had the power to violate our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. -- It is ludicrous to argue otherwise.

My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial. I would prefer the country to be finally responsible for protecting its inhabitants from encroachments of national power, and states be responsible to protect their own inhabitants from encroachments of state power. When they fail to, the people must hold them directly accountable, not in every case run to federal "daddy" (except in specific situations described in Amendment 14).

Why is it necessary, -in your mind-, to trust state/local government to honor our individual rights?
We have a constitutional system of checks & balances in place, -- that only needs to be enforced, as written, to accomplish that end.