Posted on 06/07/2004 2:10:58 PM PDT by tpaine
If you actually read his book, you would see that he does not advocate the Court's defining rights - they are already defined. You really have to read his whole book. Once you do, there are some legitimate criticisms that you can make relating to the judiciary's role. But I think you are unduly attributing a philosophy of traditional libertarian "judicial activism" to a writer and professor who I know to be more skeptical of the judiciary than probably even you or me.
Barnett also advocates a narrow interpretation of the due process clause. We are talking about the Ninth Amendment.
The Framers have been remarkably precise in using the English language in the 205 years of constitutiional drafting, amending and ratification. Let me review the process here on FreeRepublic on any subject including this. It is:
1. Read. 2. Understand. 3. Discuss.
You are long on item 3, but you have grossly neglected item 2. With every post you demonstrate again your ignorance of the Constitution.
John / Billybob
Your own words above confirm that you support the State of California's 'power' to prohibit assault weapons.
Congressman Billybob wrote: I haven't said a word about California gun laws. I HAVE said that you are a fool for not understanding that the Constitution means what it says.
The supremacy clause of Art VI says that the States are bound to honor our Constitution/BOR's. You are wrong in saying that States are not "restrained" by our BOR's; -- namely, the 2nd Amendment.
Case closed.
The only "case closed" is your inability to read and understand plain English used in the Constitution. You remain a fool.
The only "case closed" is your inability to read and understand plain English used in the Constitution.
The plain english of the supremacy clause of Article VI says that the States are bound to honor our Constitution/BOR's.
You are wrong in saying that States are not "restrained" by our BOR's; -- namely, the 2nd Amendment.
Case closed.
I think your overinterpreting the "or prohibited by it to the States" segment of this sentence. There are many passages in the Constitution which specifically prohibit certain actions by the states (i.e. coining money, entering into treaties, etc...)
"...State to have prohibition powers over firearms..."
The people retained the power to keep and bear arms. IF, and only if, the people of one or more of the several states were to specifically grant the legislature of that state the power to restrict the bearing of arms, that would be proper for that state . To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened.
The founders were aware that the needs and desires of the citizens of the states would vary from one state to the next, and specifically created a Federal framework in which the states retained a great deal of sovereignty over the day to day affairs of it's citizens.
It is probably better though that, at least in some cases, our natural rights are deemed protected by the constitution against infringment ba the states. Can you imagine the choas which would ensue if some of the states where allowed to restrict speach, or if there were no 4th or 5th Ammendment protections?
I belive this is one area where the founders, when writing the constitution, simply could not foresee the moassive changes in society. 200 years ago it would have been unthinkable to live in Washington and to "commute" to New York. Thus, restrictions in the State of New York had little impact on the citizens of the State of Maryland or Virginia. Today, people travel a great deal in thier daily lives and any restrictions in one state would have a far greater impact on the lives of the citizens of another state - without the consent of those citizens.
I don't have my copy handy, so correct me on this cite, IIRC the 14th Ammendment was the one which subordinated the states concerning the rights protected under the constitution. IF the states had already been restricted prior to this, the Ammendment [or that part of it which applies here] would have been unnecessary.
More's the pity. You should have been. Hey, it's never too late for a man of your exceptional talents and long life line.
I think your overinterpreting the "or prohibited by it to the States" segment of this sentence. There are many passages in the Constitution which specifically prohibit certain actions by the states (i.e. coining money, entering into treaties, etc...)
Yep, and our RKBA's is enumerated, specifically prohibited from being infringed.
Some Rino 'conservatives' on this forum WANT State to have prohibition powers over firearms, for instance. - Do you?
The people retained the power to keep and bear arms. IF, and only if, the people of one or more of the several states were to specifically grant the legislature of that state the power to restrict the bearing of arms, that would be proper for that state . To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened.
It has happened in California, with 'assault style' weapons.
The founders were aware that the needs and desires of the citizens of the states would vary from one state to the next, and specifically created a Federal framework in which the states retained a great deal of sovereignty over the day to day affairs of it's citizens. It is probably better though that, at least in some cases, our natural rights are deemed protected by the constitution against infringment Ba the states. Can you imagine the choas which would ensue if some of the states where allowed to restrict speach, or if there were no 4th or 5th Ammendment protections? I belive this is one area where the founders, when writing the constitution, simply could not foresee the moassive changes in society. 200 years ago it would have been unthinkable to live in Washington and to "commute" to New York. Thus, restrictions in the State of New York had little impact on the citizens of the State of Maryland or Virginia. Today, people travel a great deal in thier daily lives and any restrictions in one state would have a far greater impact on the lives of the citizens of another state - without the consent of those citizens. I don't have my copy handy, so correct me on this cite,
IIRC the 14th Ammendment was the one which subordinated the states concerning the rights protected under the constitution.
IF the states had already been restricted prior to this, the Ammendment [or that part of it which applies here] would have been unnecessary.
The States are bound to honor our Constitution as the supreme 'law of the land' in Art. VI.
-- Some states were violating individual rights using Marshall's 1833 'states rights' decision as their excuse. The 14th was passed to stop this practice.
Needless to say, it hasn't stopped. Some States, like CA, are still violating our individual RKBA's.
The question remains, why are 'conservatives' on FR supporting such prohibitions?
Thanks for the post. Bump for later read.
Reagan on why he was running for governor of California: "The rights that were once inalienable are now deemed at the dispensation of the government" (paraphrase)
It is simply amazing to me that freepers would actually be in favor of gun control. Talk about oxy-morons ! Free and Control don't really go together do they ? Perhaps they would change the name to Controlled Repbulic. After all, that's what it would be when the guns get taken away.
It is simply amazing to me that freepers would actually be in favor of gun control. Talk about oxy-morons ! Free and Control don't really go together do they ?
Never have.. -- It's the 'control thing' that's the real problem.
Lots of conservatives think that a majority can control society for the greater good, -- to "promote the general Welfare" as our Preamble puts it.
Wrong. -- The best thing government can do is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty", -- by preventing majority control.
Chaos?
The states had the power to restrict free speech and the press until the 1925. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the first amendment protection of free speech and freedom of the press was "incorporated" under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and made applicable to the states. I don't remember reading about any free speech "chaos" prior to 1925.
The fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches without a warrant wasn't extended to the states until 1914 (Weeks v. United States). No chaos.
The "Grand Jury" provision of the fifth amendment still does NOT apply to the states. The seventh amendment (right to a jury trial in a civil case) still does NOT apply to the states.
In my opinion, incorporating the first amendment and making those provisions applicable to the states has resulted in chaos. Now, the USSC defines free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.
Now the USSC defines nude dancing as "speech", but not political campaign ads 30 days prior to an election. Free speech does NOT include saying "God" at a high school commencement ceremony. Freedom of religion has been turned on its head to be freedom from religion.
Five justices determine what the first amendment means for 300 million Americans. And tpaine wants these same liberal jerkoffs to define the second amendment for us.
Here is where I disagree. Our RKBA's are NOT enumerated. NONE of our rights are! The Bill of Rights is nothing more than specific prohibitions to the government indicating places it could not go.
Would a repeal of the Second Ammendment in any way affect our inherit RKBA?
I take the same opinion as Hamilton. Since the people did not specifically grant the Federal Government the power to pass any laws concerning the possession of arms, they can not do so.
Because of that, I suggest that the people of a state COULD give that power to a state. Why they would do so is beyond my comprehesion and is a most theoretical.
Because governments often totally ignore the restrictions we place upon them is the reason the courts were established. They are supposed to be the arbiters of whether the government has overstepped it's authority. Unfortunately, the courts seem to side with the government.
Just my two cents worth.
Or as several wise men have stated in some form or other "We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Democracy means "mob rules:.
-- the USSC defines free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.
Never has paulsen, never will. The USSC is empowered to judge disputes as per Art III Sec 2, "with such Exceptions --- as Congress shall make."
We the people control both court & congress.
Now the USSC defines nude dancing as "speech",
You want to ban dancing, paulsen? Why?
but not political campaign ads 30 days prior to an election.
A Rino Congress passed that 'law'.
Free speech does NOT include saying "God" at a high school commencement ceremony.
Preach your religion at church, not at a public school, paulsen.
Freedom of religion has been turned on its head to be freedom from religion.
Simple hype. You can practice whatever religion you want.
Five justices determine what the first amendment means for 300 million Americans.
Rant on.
And tpaine wants these same liberal jerkoffs to define the second amendment for us.
No, I want the USSC to tell the State of CA to stop their violations of our RKBA's. - And, -- I want our Executive branch to enforce that decision upon the CA state officials that have ignored their oaths of office to protect & defend our US Constitution.
In fact paulsen, you might give a little thought to why you scoff at that oath.
AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY WOULD?
That's my whole point. What has the USSC done recently to make you think that they would rule in such a conservative manner? Actually, the chances are very good that they would simply follow the Ninth Circuit.
The good citizens of the state of California need to get off their butts and pass a state constitutional amendment that protects their RKBA. Period.
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.