Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The U.S. Constitution [Misinterpreted] Online
USConstitution.net ^ | 4/9/04 | steve mount

Posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine

This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.
Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

It is incredible, seeing the author completely ignores the supremacy clause in Art. VI.

He then goes on to bash our 2nd Amendment:

"Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill - this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation.
Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully.


Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution.
After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."

Know you enemy.. This man Steve Mount is NOT a friend of our Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-500 next last

1 posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Thanks for the link, paulsen.


2 posted on 07/09/2004 9:20:55 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute

up your alley


3 posted on 07/09/2004 9:31:23 AM PDT by snopercod (It is fair to say tonight that any recovery in this country is a work in progress - Brian Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Thanks for the link, paulsen."

First, I didn't give you this link. I referenced a different page.

Second, your link goes to the wrong page. The verbage you quoted comes from here. FReepers would be well advised to go to the correct page to see your excerpt in context.

Third, the author presents this scenario "as a way to spark discussion of the topic."

Fourth, I think the author is correct -- I think that our society views our freedom to bear arms as those arms "reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense". I believe that society neglects the fact that the primary purpose of the second amendment was to protect against tyranny.

4 posted on 07/09/2004 9:37:05 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

robertpaulsen wrote:

The link I provided was for the others on this board -- here's yours.

His 'kiddy' interpretations of our Constitution are very slyly worded, I admit.

Mount is very good at his game. - You ever meet him paulsen?

5 posted on 07/09/2004 9:37:34 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
This guy sounds like another lefty trying to rewrite the Constitution to make him feel better.
6 posted on 07/09/2004 9:38:31 AM PDT by vpintheak (Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

bmp


7 posted on 07/09/2004 9:45:13 AM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I hope Freepers will see the whole site, paulsen..

Its very well done agit-prop for your sides anti-constitutional POV. -- Very sly.

Mount shades his interpretations just enough to appear to be 'reasonable'..
But his real idea is to rewrite our Constitution, in favor of all powerful, majority controlled States.
8 posted on 07/09/2004 9:45:54 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/


9 posted on 07/09/2004 9:46:30 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

This post is a mess. I suggest you have the mods pull it and start over. Please excerpt one cohesive piece of text. You have two different sections. And please save your editorializing for the Replies section of the thread.


10 posted on 07/09/2004 9:47:41 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
From the site referenced there is a poll that is seriously in need of freeping: Please tell us where you stand on the issues by taking our new annual political spectrum survey. Liberal? Conservative? Let us know!
11 posted on 07/09/2004 9:50:00 AM PDT by joebellis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"But his real idea is to rewrite our Constitution, in favor of all powerful, majority controlled States."

Oh my. The Founding Fathers would be appalled.

12 posted on 07/09/2004 9:51:15 AM PDT by robertpaulsen (Do I need to add /sarcasm?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"...The need to arm the populace...is no longer of much concern...?
I beg to differ. These are the most dangerous of times. Everyone needs a means of self defense. Instead of being discouraged, gun ownership should be mandatory.


13 posted on 07/09/2004 9:57:48 AM PDT by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Notice they want to 'replace' and not 'repeal' because when you repeal an amendment it stays in the constitution for future generations to see..


14 posted on 07/09/2004 9:58:35 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law.

The average voter today can pass an 8th grade test from 1900, or read the Federalist papers, yea we are way more sophisticated.

15 posted on 07/09/2004 10:03:46 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henderson field
"...The need to arm the populace...is no longer of much concern...?

I believe the complete phrase was, "... the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern ..."

Given the fact that we now have a standing army, the reserves, and the National Guard, you still feel that we should organize, arm, and form a citizens militia? To fight ... who?

I mean, citizens should be armed, I agree. But the author was referring to a militia.

16 posted on 07/09/2004 10:05:32 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I see the usual 'reasonable' crowd is showing up to slag you.

The right to keep and bear arms is, as a matter of historical fact, SPECIFICALLY rooted in the natural right to defend against tyranny.

You know it; I know it; even the 'reasonable' bunch know it. They just deny it - that's all.


17 posted on 07/09/2004 10:06:02 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I wouldn't be surprised to wake up one morning in the near future to read some activist federal judge has found the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

Of course this is what they want with help from the UN and World Court.


18 posted on 07/09/2004 10:18:05 AM PDT by Defiant1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak

Feel better? -- No, I think the Statists goal is to nail dowm majority control of ALL levels of local government.


19 posted on 07/09/2004 10:29:08 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
This post is a mess. I suggest you have the mods pull it and start over. Please excerpt one cohesive piece of text. You have two different sections. And please save your editorializing for the Replies section of the thread.
10 NutCBoy

_____________________________________


Feel free to critique my opinions.

But please, if you must snivel, cry on paulsens sholder.
20 posted on 07/09/2004 10:34:47 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes paulsen, the FF would be appalled.

In fact, there are valid reasons to believe that a basic, inalienable right, like our RKBA's, could NOT be repealed.. -- Such an Amendment would be repugnant to the very principles of our Constitutional 'contract'.
21 posted on 07/09/2004 10:40:24 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

Good point.

Thanks.


22 posted on 07/09/2004 10:41:31 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
There's that !@#$%&*! "Fire In A Theater" thing again...

I have every right to yell Fire in a crowded theater or any where else I deem fit..
Especially if there is a FIRE..
I then not only have a right but a responsibility..
( I would probably wait until I was near the exit, however.. )

As for the 2nd, ...
I will pry the guns from the cold, dead hands of the Jack Booted thugs that come to get MY guns..
And use them get even more..

23 posted on 07/09/2004 10:47:30 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

robertpaulsen wrote:

--- you still feel that we should organize, arm, and form a citizens militia? To fight ... who?


______________________________________


Enemies, -- domestic?
Our enemy within becomes ever more bold paulsen, as we see by exposing sites like this one, and you all, -- who support them.


24 posted on 07/09/2004 10:47:45 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes

headsonpikes wrote:
I see the usual 'reasonable' crowd is showing up to slag you.

The right to keep and bear arms is, as a matter of historical fact, SPECIFICALLY rooted in the natural right to defend against tyranny.

You know it; I know it; even the 'reasonable' bunch know it. They just deny it - that's all.

______________________________________


And isn't it amazing that we have to keep re-arguing these VERY basic principles with socalled 'conservatives' on FR.





25 posted on 07/09/2004 10:52:46 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Enemies, -- domestic?"

So, we need to organize, and arm, a citizens state militia to combat these domestic enemies? Just so I know where to aim my gun, could you point out one of them?

I don't know what's more appropriate for you -- my Reynold's Wrap picture or my Black Helicopter Crowd picture.

26 posted on 07/09/2004 11:40:46 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

He's correct about the Bill of Rights' not applying to the States. The First Amendment, e.g., says CONGRESS shall make no law... It was the Supreme Court that decreed that "Congress" means "your local government school" or "your local city council" is not allowed to put up a Christmas tree, etc. It is the Supreme Court that decreed that because CONGRESS is prohibited from limiting speech, your state cannot do anything about pornography, etc.


27 posted on 07/09/2004 11:45:52 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Look in a mirror.


28 posted on 07/09/2004 11:50:19 AM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
He's correct about the Bill of Rights' not applying to the States. The First Amendment, e.g., says CONGRESS shall make no law...

Which line only applied to the establishment clause, as Justice Thomas just noted in his 'Newdow' opinion. The rest of our BOR's applies to ALL levels of Government, and protects ALL of our individual rights.

It was the Supreme Court that decreed that "Congress" means "your local government school" or "your local city council" is not allowed to put up a Christmas tree, etc.

Yep, the USSC is just as out of control as the Statists.

It is the Supreme Court that decreed that because CONGRESS is prohibited from limiting speech, your state cannot do anything about pornography, etc.

There are plenty of valid laws about the criminal aspects of porn.
We don't need more prohibitional decrees on 'sin' nor on 'evil' property like 'assault weapons' .

29 posted on 07/09/2004 12:06:06 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; tpaine
tpaine likes it that way. He wants to ensure that the BOR in the U.S. Constitution applies to everyone equally. He doesn't trust those yucky states to do it.

Of course, he ignores the fact that with the federal BOR comes the USSC interpretation of those BOR. That how you get the 1st amendment free speech protecting nude dancing, but not political advocacy ads 30 days prior to an election. Insanity that now applies to every state in the union.

Just what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

30 posted on 07/09/2004 12:20:50 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Hello all ... an anonymous emailer left me a link to this discussion. It is gratifying to see that something I wrote prompted a spirited debate. Some posters here have disparaging remarks for me, but I'll take them with a grain of salt. I wanted to address a few points made in the original post.

Regarding my "insidious" interpretation of the Constitution in a pro-statist manner ... I'm not sure I've ever heard my interpretations described as insidious, and I don't think I would ever have described myself as pro-statist ... is there a definition of that that I can see? I've always considered myself a strong federalist/nationalist, though I certainly see great benefit in the separations we have with the states.

Regarding my ignoring the Supremacy Clause: I know of this clause of which you speak ... but the Supreme Court prior to incorporation did not apply this clause to the states, as a historical look at Supreme Court decisions will show. My discussion of incorporation on by Bill of Rights page gets into detail.

Do I bash the 2nd Amendment? I guess you could say I do, but in the long run, I think my suggested replacement protects gun ownership in a way that the 2nd might not. In any case, to anyone who is afraid that my amendment would remove the text of the 2nd from the Constitution, be aware that that is just not how it is done, and I would not do it. The amendments are not only our law but are our historical context. Despite the fact that the 18th is no longer applicable, it remains in mine and all copies as a reminder of where we have been.

As to the note that I am not a friend of the Constitution, I beg to differ most strongly on this point. There are not many people who have done as much as I have to bring this wonderful document to the common person.

As to some of the other posts, I'm not exactly sure what "freeping" is, but if it involves "stuffing the ballot box," I do hope that the poll is not skewed by multiple votes by one person. That would be a shame and would reflect badly on whomever votes multiple times.

Anyway - thanks for stopping by my site and reading my content. If anyone has any questions or comments for me, I'm happy to address them.


31 posted on 07/09/2004 12:37:36 PM PDT by steve802
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Which line only applied to the establishment clause, as Justice Thomas just noted in his 'Newdow' opinion."

Uh-huh. And Newdow was a federal case. Would you care to tell me why Justice Thomas even brought it up? No one else seems to know why.

32 posted on 07/09/2004 12:37:43 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen wrote:

tpaine likes it that way. He wants to ensure that the BOR in the U.S. Constitution applies to everyone equally. He doesn't trust those yucky states to do it.

You got that correct paulsen. I trust no government that is ruled by the 'will of the majority'. Our Constitutional rights suit me fine.

Of course, he ignores the fact that with the federal BOR comes the USSC interpretation of those BOR.

Belied by what I wrote at #29:
- "Yep, the USSC is just as out of control as the Statists" - like paulsen.

33 posted on 07/09/2004 1:02:27 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steve802
steve802 said: "I think my suggested replacement protects gun ownership in a way that the 2nd might not."

It is unfortunate that what you say may be true. Properly read, the Second Amendment prohibits infringement, regardless of how many super-majority votes such a bill might receive.

Your redefinition omits the most serious reason why free people have the right to keep and bear arms. That is to maintain the security of a free state. You need to add that back in, recognizing that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed and that the people need to retain their power to abolish governments which become tyrannical.

Finally, you need to make explicit that the prohibition against infringement extends to all governments and is not just a constraint on Congress.

34 posted on 07/09/2004 1:03:33 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: steve802
steve802 wrote:
Hello all ... an anonymous emailer left me a link to this discussion. It is gratifying to see that something I wrote prompted a spirited debate. Some posters here have disparaging remarks for me, but I'll take them with a grain of salt.

______________________________________

Steve, that 'anonymous' email was from me.
-- I'll be gone for a couple of hours, then will be back to reply in detail.

Thanks for your reply.
35 posted on 07/09/2004 1:07:57 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
I have every right to yell Fire in a crowded theater or any where else I deem fit..

Yes you do have that right. However, there are consequences in law should you exercise your rights irresponsibly and cause harm to the person or property of another.

36 posted on 07/09/2004 1:37:01 PM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steve802
In U.S. vs Lopez, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8.

Indeed, if a substantial effects test can be appended to the Commerce Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government. There is no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment. Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that substantially affect the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures, and so on. In that case, the clauses of 8 all mutually overlap, something we can assume the Founding Fathers never intended.

Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the substantial effects test should be reexamined.

Do you agree with Justice Thomas' comments on substantial effects and the Commerce Clause?

37 posted on 07/09/2004 2:23:49 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
However, there are consequences in law should you exercise your rights irresponsibly and cause harm to the person or property of another.

Thank you for stating the obvious..

I excluded that part on purpose.. I wrongly assumed everyone would simply understand that we are all responsible for our actions..

38 posted on 07/09/2004 2:55:12 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: steve802
steve802 wrote:

It is gratifying to see that something I wrote prompted a spirited debate. Some posters here have disparaging remarks for me, but I'll take them with a grain of salt. I wanted to address a few points made in the original post.
Regarding my "insidious" interpretation of the Constitution in a pro-statist manner ... I'm not sure I've ever heard my interpretations described as insidious, and I don't think I would ever have described myself as pro-statist ... is there a definition of that that I can see?

Being 'pro-state' in a Constitutional sense is pretty self evident 'Statist' in my opinion.
To me Statism is an insidious type of anti-constitutionalism, as it can be passed off as being very patriotic, but in political reality it leads to supporting group 'rights', ~majority rule~, over individual liberty under the rule of constitutional law.

I've always considered myself a strong federalist/nationalist, though I certainly see great benefit in the separations we have with the states.

Sorry, but your opinions as quoted sure give me the opposite impression.

Regarding my ignoring the Supremacy Clause: I know of this clause of which you speak ... but the Supreme Court prior to incorporation did not apply this clause to the states, as a historical look at Supreme Court decisions will show.

Yep, that clause has been ignored by States for obvious reasons. -- And imo, it was ignored before the Civil War by the feds, for the same obvious reasons. --- Ignoring it now, in the case of our RKBA's, is becoming anti-constitutional in its effect.

My discussion of incorporation on by Bill of Rights page gets into detail. Do I bash the 2nd Amendment? I guess you could say I do, but in the long run, I think my suggested replacement protects gun ownership in a way that the 2nd might not.

The people that own arms will, in the end, protect our RKBA's. Suggesting appeasement measures to 'protect' it is the REAL way to tear this nation apart.

In any case, to anyone who is afraid that my amendment would remove the text of the 2nd from the Constitution, be aware that that is just not how it is done, and I would not do it. The amendments are not only our law but are our historical context. Despite the fact that the 18th is no longer applicable, it remains in mine and all copies as a reminder of where we have been.
As to the note that I am not a friend of the Constitution, I beg to differ most strongly on this point. There are not many people who have done as much as I have to bring this wonderful document to the common person.

To 'bring' it to us, misinterpreted as you have, is no favor Steve. Our RKBA's is an inalienable individual liberty, not a negotiable privilage.

As to some of the other posts, I'm not exactly sure what "freeping" is, but if it involves "stuffing the ballot box," I do hope that the poll is not skewed by multiple votes by one person. That would be a shame and would reflect badly on whomever votes multiple times.
Anyway - thanks for stopping by my site and reading my content. If anyone has any questions or comments for me, I'm happy to address them.

I'd comment that you should give serious thought to revising your sites endorsement of a States 'power' to ignore the supremacy of our US Constitutions guarantees of life, liberty and property..

Thanks again for responding.

39 posted on 07/09/2004 5:06:39 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Thanks for posting this. As one who recently switched to the BOR restricts the feds mode, here's why: I'd much rather face state clowns on their clown bikes trying to take away my right to keep and bear arms, than have the Feds park a FatBoy in my living room with five justices riding in the sidecar.


40 posted on 07/09/2004 6:18:04 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

"Pro-Statist manner"? Puh-LEASE! The concept that all the restrictions placed on the federal government by the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well is the pro-Statist interpretation of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted there were states with their own official state churches. This was not seen by any of the signers as a violation of the Bill of Rights. The reason? The Bill of Rights were limitations placed on the federal government by the state representatives that signed the Constitution. The states existed prior to the Constitution.
41 posted on 07/09/2004 6:21:54 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest

Hmmmm.. ?


42 posted on 07/09/2004 6:28:48 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Well, heck. Even without the Second Amendment, every Citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to defend your life wherever you go, your liberty means nothing and the pursuit of happiness is a myth. The Second Amendment is a bonus -- a warning to gummint.
43 posted on 07/09/2004 6:32:12 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
As one who recently switched to the BOR restricts the feds mode, here's why: I'd much rather face state clowns on their clown bikes trying to take away my right to keep and bear arms, than have the Feds park a FatBoy in my living room with five justices riding in the sidecar.

What would the downside be to the RKBA by having the Second Amendment apply to State and local governments as well as Federal?

44 posted on 07/09/2004 6:39:48 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

"Pro-Statist manner"? Puh-LEASE! The concept that all the restrictions placed on the federal government by the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well is the pro-Statist interpretation of the Constitution.

The BOR's apply to ALL levels of our government. All of our officials are required to swear an oath to support the US Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land. Read Art. VI.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted there were states with their own official state churches.

Yep, they were 'grandfathered' in. Big deal. Utah was later refused Statehood until they abandoned their state approved religious establishments.

This was not seen by any of the signers as a violation of the Bill of Rights. The reason? The Bill of Rights were limitations placed on the federal government by the state representatives that signed the Constitution. The states existed prior to the Constitution.

They existed as former Colonies, independent from English rule. They became States of the USA upon ratification of our Constitution.

45 posted on 07/09/2004 6:47:54 PM PDT by tpaine (The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
What would the downside be to the RKBA by having the Second Amendment apply to State

None whatsoever. In fact, crime among the states would be so low that spending on law enforcement could be decreased by one half with no noticeable effect to the average citizen. The gungrabbers at the state level don't want to implement this test. They'd much rather the Feds try to form the 'more perfect' union.

'More perfect' is best acheived from the bottom up rather than top-down. Ask any serf.

46 posted on 07/09/2004 6:52:24 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

The Bill of Rights was not originally intended to be applied to the states. The protections of the BOR have been applied to the states only by virtue of incorporation into the 14th Amendment.

(The Supremacy Clause has nothing to do with this--if the BOR was written only to apply to the FedGov then it doesn't matter if it is the supreme law of the land or not.)

In Barron v. Baltimore, decided in 1833, Chief Justice Marshall held that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to state and local governments.

It was only years after passage of the 14th Amendment that parts of the Bill of Rights began to be applied to the states. Even today, parts of the BOR do not apply to the states, i.e., the right to be charged by a grand jury. Today, you can be charged by prosecutor's information in some states.

This is important, because it is through this incorporation idea that we have gotten the notion that school prayer is unconsitutional. A strong argument can be made that, even after the 14th Amendment, the Constitution should not be interepreted to incorporate the 1st Amendment and apply it to the states.


47 posted on 07/09/2004 7:12:50 PM PDT by CalRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
What would the downside be to the RKBA by having the Second Amendment apply to State and local governments as well as Federal?

None whatsoever. In fact, crime among the states would be so low that spending on law enforcement could be decreased by one half with no noticeable effect to the average citizen. The gungrabbers at the state level don't want to implement this test.

Exactly.

They'd much rather the Feds try to form the 'more perfect' union.

Agreed. See post #37 for one of the main reasons why we have a huge, expensive, and intrusive Federal government.

Most, if not all Federal anti-gun legislation uses the Commerce Clause as the grant of power to infringe the RKBA.

'More perfect' is best acheived from the bottom up rather than top-down. Ask any serf.

Bingo.

48 posted on 07/09/2004 7:14:41 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
tpaine, I applaud your inexhaustible efforts to apply the 2nd ammendment to the fifty states. What concerns me is your competition. Black robed 'appointees' sit in the wings waiting to do the same. The second ammendment defangs the feds. It defangs Feinstein and Schumner.

To bring to vote any infringements on the right to bear arms at the federal level by these two is nothing short of treason- a direct violation of the 2nd. They should be handcuffed and led out of our Senate. Were we today, the people recently relieved of the British occupation and it's tyranny, they'd be blindfolded, offered a cigarette, and shot.

Put me solidly in the camp with state's rights, 'cause without them, individual rights don't exist.

BTW, a FatBoy is a very big Harley Davidson motorcycle. Unlike the provervial elephant, I seriously doubt this baby would go unnoticed in most living rooms.

49 posted on 07/09/2004 7:22:08 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I've read many of your posts and enjoy your take on things constitutional. Post #37 and Thomas' remarks ring true as power, like nature, abhores a vacuum. Commerce clause as a road to tyranny was probably not imagined by those who wrote it.

Leave it to those forever adorned with jackboots to infiltrate that which was designed to keep them expressly from the party. Rude barely begins to describe them.

50 posted on 07/09/2004 7:55:15 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-500 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson