Posted on 06/07/2004 2:10:58 PM PDT by tpaine
And yet, with a 2nd ammendment,(incorporated or not) with it's legitimate restrictions on the federal government's ability to 'infringe' on the RKBA, they go ahead and do it anyway. Clinton, Feinstein, Schumner, et. all.
The lesson: that one's constitution is only as good as those whose job it is to enforce it and it's being raped every day at the federal level, so, what hope exists that 'natural' rights would be better protected by any state government? Answer: none.
One might think (given the heavy media attention to gruesome crimes) that 'the people' would be clamoring for their right to own and carry weapons totally unrestriced, but they aren't. They've been dumbed-down. Solution: get the media and the state out of the 'dumbing-down' business.
Which brings us full circle to the question: Why do liberals exist?
Actually, I see it that way, too, tpaine. The Framers designed for an extremely "lean" federal government. They would be shocked, stunned, to learn how obese it has become over the past two centuries.
I don't mind in the least that the federal bill of rights trumps states' bills of rights. Though I acknowledged that this very issue is what gave George Mason many sleepless nights. I have read the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Bill of Rights, authored by John Adams, and there's nothing in the federal bill that is at odds with any provision of it. If anything, the Massachusetts BoR expands the content of the federal bill, which it is its perfect right to do, under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The fact is, these bills of rights were the products of a particular period of human history and culture, a time of widely shared values and ideas about man and his place in political society and beyond. And that is why you will find that so many constitutions written in America during this historical period are so very similar to each other in language and in spirit.
For whatever that observation is worth....
If I might explore a different but closely related line of inquiry, consider this postulate: Not even the "best constitution" can provide the conditions for a free and just political society where the "human material" available to construct such a society is disordered and dispirited.
We wonder how things got so out of control with this sprawling and increasingly tyrannical leviathan of ours. It's really very simple: Politicians wax great in this world by appealing to our fears and greed. If we citizens were ordered by the traditional American virtues, freely expressed, then this problem would be moot. And then maybe we could have some fun "tar-and-feathering" parties, and run the charletans out of town on a rail.... :^)
American society today, it seems to me, does not have the kind of moral clarity it would take to put faithless, unprincipled politicians and their aiders and abetters in academe, the major media, and the salon culture of Park Avenue, Cambridge, Berkeley, et al. in their place.
Plato observed nearly 2,500 years ago that the polis -- the political order of a people -- can only be as good as the human material out of which it is constructed. If men are lustful and do not restrain themselves, then one cannot hope that the government of such men would be just, disinterested, or restrained.
All of which is to say that constitutions do not and cannot "order souls," or really make a difference in how we actually live our lives. Only religion can do that, and has ever done so from times immemorial. I think the Framers well understood this principle. Which is why they sought to protect religion against government encroachment.
I know God really "scares you," tpaine. But I wish you'd take a moment to think about that, and then tell me what you think.
No Betty, Article 6 is in the Constitution. Not the Bill of Rights.
Mason was not at all worried about the federal BOR trumping the state's because he wanted it to secure the state's Bill of Rights from the federal government. As he says.
Whatever, your heart is in the right place and you will discover that for yourself one day if you desire to. It's pretty much moot since the Fourteenth Amendment anyway.
One prominent reason the government grows and grows is because people re-interpret the Constitution to mean what they wish, so they can have what they wish. Politician, judges and citizens all do it.
Hmmmm.. Ok, I thought a moment about where you got the idea that "God really scares" me, betty, and I can't come up with a clue.
You're gonna have to help me out here. -- Is it cocktail time at the Boop residence perchance?
Well, it was nice while it lasted...
Agreed. However, a bible isn't required to discover the wisdom behind the notion that one should be prepared to defend oneself or family at anytime, anyplace. That we can't suggests something very 'secular' is at work here.
Peculiarly, I'm not a fan of Diane Feinstein or her religious interpretations. (Hey, whatever happened to seperation of church and state?) I think our government has been hijacked by religious interests, but I'm keeping that a secret, don't tell anybody.
Sure kiddo. Can i get yu anything from the bar? :^P
And yet culturally and historically speaking, the Bible is the source of the wisdom that tells us that self- and family defense -- and from there I extrapolate defense of one's community, nation, and country -- is just in the judgment of God, especially in cases where one's self or family or country has come under unprovoked attack by adversaries who think that death is the answer to all their problems.
IMHO, this is the problem of/for our age. i kid you not.
FWIW.
Thanks for writing, budwiesest. Good night!
But in Roe v Wade, the USSC found that a woman had a constitutional right to have an abortion [under the "(substantive) due process*" clause of the 14th amendment] in the first trimester. They ruled that it was "unreasonable" for a state to interfere.
Given that finding, it is now unconstitutional for a state to ban abortion since it would interfere with that constitutional right, and would violate the Supremacy Clause contained in Article VI** of the U.S. Constitution.
*Due process, in the context of the United States, refers to how (procedural) and why (substantive) laws are enforced.
**Article VI states that if a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law prevails.
I'm not convinced. And the reason I'm not convinced is that the liberals are not using the Ninth Amendment to justify their judicial activism, they're finding fundamental rights in the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Nobody's used the Ninth, ever, to win a case. They've certainly tried, and there's tons of case law where it has been rejected (which would have to be overcome, thank you very much).
No. This is basic $hit, and I'm not going to waste my time. Google it yourself.
Good theory, but if the state really wanted to restrict guns it would find that power somewhere in their state constitution -- the power to "maintain order", or the power to "secure liberty" or some such stupid reason (look at the hoops the USSC jumped through to allow abortion -- a penumbra of an emanation, for crying out loud).
Without state constitutional protection of the RKBA, legislatures will find a way.
You certainly have the right to be ignorant of your own state constitution, but don't besmirch my name in the process.
First of all, the seventh amendment is not about a "right to sue". The seventh amendment states that a person has a right to a jury in a civil case. This amendment has not been "incorporated", which means that a jury trial in a civil case is not protected bt the U.S. Constitution.
The right to a jury in a civil case is protected by state constitutions. Kansas protects that right"
KANSAS CONSTITUTION
Kansas Bill of Rights
§ 5. Trail [sic] by jury. The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate
§ 10. Trial; defense of accused. In all prosecutions, the accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person, or by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to meet the witness face to face, and to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of the witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. No person shall be a witness against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
Note!:§10 applies "In all prosecutions..." and is not, by its terms, limited to "criminal" prosecutions.
Without this in your state constitution, you would not have the right to a jury in a civil lawsuit.
Good find.
You have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
--- state legislatures are not restricted when writing gun control laws.
Bizarre logic, paulsen, as you admit our fundamental RKBA's.-
- Then you claim it can be violated without restriction.
You constantly confuse a fundamental right with an unalienable right. There is a difference, other than the spelling.
No, there is no 'difference'. -- Make your point if you can, paulsen, but I won't hold my breath.
No. This is basic $hit, and I'm not going to waste my time. Google it yourself.
Basic bull-"$hit", from you paulsen.
You threw out that irrational 'point' because you had no comeback on the illogical & contradictory position you hold on our RKBA's.
You 'waste' your time every day here at FR, arguing against our constitutions basic principles. Why?
State government is closer and more responsive to the people. People within a state have more in common with each other, such that their laws reflect the majority will. A violation of "natural" rights would/could lead to an exodus of citizens (and their taxes) to a friendlier state. Fifty different states represent fifty different "laboratories" to see what works.
Off the top of my head.
"that 'the people' would be clamoring for their right to own and carry weapons totally unrestriced, but they aren't."
Sure they are. 35 states allow CCW, and that number has been growing, not declining.
On the surface, this sounds good. But with a federal Bill of Rights you get a federal interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
You get free speech interpreted as nude dancing, but not political speech 30 days before an election. Free speech does NOT include a high school student saying "God" at his commencement ceremony.
Freedon of religion? Try freedom from religion -- a hundred examples.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? No-knock, anyone? Asset forfeiture, anyone?
And since you don't mind in the least that the federal bill of rights trumps states' bills of rights, then you don't mind that these USSC rulings apply to each and every state. Sorry, but I mind.
I'm not convinced. And the reason I'm not convinced is that the liberals are not using the Ninth Amendment to justify their judicial activism, they're finding fundamental rights in the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment.
In its discussion of the scope of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court stated:
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.
As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777
History proves this wrong. In the 80 or so years before the 14th Amendment, "Natural" rights were violated at will by the states. For example, look at the civil rights abuses perpetrated on whites in the south who opposed slavery.
That majority rule in a state somehow ensures that rights will be respected is just wrong. If you are given a dollar to split among three people, majority vote determines how it is split, it is likely that two of the people are going to band together in a majority voting block to take the dollar all for themselves. That is a simplified version of the danger of factions that Madison spoke about in the Federalist Papers. If it can happen with three people, how will it not happen with a state of three million.
On the surface, this sounds good. But with a federal Bill of Rights you get a federal interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
And that fed interpretation can be challenged by our States. Rarely is because States are controlled by the same Rinocratic cabal as the feds.
You get free speech interpreted as nude dancing,
Nude dancing is NOT 'evil', paulsen. Grow up.
but not political speech 30 days before an election.
Blame the Rinocrats.
Free speech does NOT include a high school student saying "God" at his commencement ceremony.
Wrong venue to be preaching about god.
Freedon of religion? Try freedom from religion -- a hundred examples.
Yada yada.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? No-knock, anyone? Asset forfeiture, anyone?
Yep, the feds violate our constitution. So do State/local governments.
-- Paulsen, your claim that CA can violate our RKBA's encourages that POV. -- People like you are a BIG part of the problem.
And since you don't mind in the least that the federal bill of rights trumps states' bills of rights, then you don't mind that these USSC rulings apply to each and every state. Sorry, but I mind.
Your 'mind' is very confused, paulsen. Get some lessons in logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.