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

Skip to comments.

The Federalism Debate [And 'States Rights']
Cato Institue ^ | 10/28/04 | Rodger Pilon

Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-391 next last
To: tpaine
You're ignoring Art. VI and the Amendments.

The Bill of Rights is not a "list of our rights," it is a list of restrictions on the federal government.

Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights never applied to the state governments until the passage of the fourteenth amendment.

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated...

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. - Chief Justice Marshall Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)


101 posted on 10/29/2004 12:31:25 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Then I suggest you live in a state that permits this. Otherwise, your a$$ is goin' to jail."

Silly you. You are already in jail and don't know it.

102 posted on 10/29/2004 12:34:24 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
If they steal the word 'marriage,' and the courts allow it, the rule of law in America will be destroyed, as the courts will have a precedent that will allow it change the legal definition of any word. Think of how that might impact unalienable rights and contracts.

That is exactly what the 'homosexuals' are attempting to do.

Now there are only two courses open, since if a state recognizes a union of this sort as a 'marriage' all states must also accept that recognitation.

One, outlaw it on the state level as is polygymy (which won't happen-but should) or two, define marriage on the federal level so that no state can redefine it.

The point is that the federal level must protect all states from one state abusing the union we have among ourselves.

103 posted on 10/29/2004 12:38:20 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Exactly, this is why States have their own Constitutions. They determine how the States will protect the individual rights of State citizens from the overbearing federal government.

And the state constitutions must be consistent with the Federal one.

104 posted on 10/29/2004 12:41:36 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: TheFrog
So all homicide cases should be held Federal Courts?

Ofcourse not.

We are talking about checks and balances.

On a practical level, local crimes are dealt with locally.

However, a murder must be considered a crime in every state, no state can pick and choose to ignore a murder and redefine the term to mean what it wants to e.g. it is not 'murder' to kill deformed infants.

105 posted on 10/29/2004 12:45:52 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved. Lots of things have life involved. Are all of them Federal Government Issues? How about murder? Capital punishment? Adequate medical care? Adequate nourishment? Adequate product safety? Safety from Natural Disasters?

The question we are dealing with here one of checks and balances, not the extent of gov't involvment in our lives.

The role of gov't is to protect the individuals freedom and that includes all arbitrary actions by all levels of gov't including local and state.

We can go to any of the 50 states and find the same judical system in place, the same need for search warrents, the same jury system, etc because of the federal system.

106 posted on 10/29/2004 12:53:04 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
We are talking about checks and balances.

from the article:

At bottom, then, the Tenth Amendment is not about federal vs. state, much less about federal-state "partnerships," block grants, "swapping," "turnbacks," or any of the other modern concepts of intergovernmental governance. It is about legitimacy.

As the final member of the Bill of Rights, and the culmination of the founding period, the Tenth Amendment recapitulates the philosophy of government first set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that governments are instituted to secure our rights, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Without that consent, as manifest in the Constitution, power is simply not there.

It is the doctrine of enumerated powers, then, that gives content to the Tenth Amendment, informs its theory of legitimacy, and limits the federal government. Power is granted or delegated by the people, enumerated in the Constitution, and thus limited by virtue of that delegation and enumeration.

The Framers could hardly have enumerated all of our rights--a problem the Ninth Amendment was meant to address. They could enumerate the federal government's powers, which they did to restrain that government. The doctrine of enumerated powers was meant to be the principal line of defense against overweening government. The Bill of Rights, added two years after the Constitution was ratified, was meant as a secondary defense.

Today we need that secondary defense because enumerated powers has been abandoned in the face of rampant nationalism.

107 posted on 10/29/2004 12:53:51 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No one here is contesting the point that a state cannot ignore murder as a crime.

Well, the reason no state cannot is because of the Federal system that is in place.

The states are under the authority of the Federal gov't to do so.

Therefore the point you were attempting to make; -- 'that IF it could be proved that life [personhood] began at conception then the Federal gov't would have an obligation to defend it', -- is moot, -- considering that no live person can be proved to exist until some time after conception.

I think the way to have handled the abortion issue was to approach it from a different angle.

The question is not wheather or not the fetus is 'human life' but who is deciding that it is.

In other words, the woman is being allowed to define something as being human or not based on her own subjective desires.

That is why the feminist movement fights so fiercly for abortion 'rights' it makes the woman a 'goddess' deciding what is life or not.

We have seen a woman who is pregnant who wants the baby describe it as such even though she is less then a month pregnant.

If she doesn't want the baby then it becomes a 'fetus'.

The Court should have ruled that since no objective standard of life can be made, no subjective one can be allowed either.

But the point was not abortion, but rather the issue of powers between the states and federal gov't and how each one protects freedom in its own way.

No state could allow the murder of killing infants a day old due to deformity for example and then claim 'states rights'.

108 posted on 10/29/2004 1:02:15 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
There are many points popping up in this post. Let's hope by resolving one or two, the logic can be applied to resolving some of the others. Here's one for today: I understand the principle of the argument that you pose, that the fedguv steps in to protect life when the state fails to. But it is not consistent, which is my point. It is a pick and choose matter for the feds to become involved, only when it's to their advantage. If the fedguv is going to protect life with Roe, why does it not protect life by incorporating the second amendment across the board? All state and federal gun control laws should be abolished. We know that gun control laws deny people the right to defend their lives. Therefore, their right to life has been abolished. Is not the federal government guilty of being at war with the principles of the DOI, the same as if would be if Roe were reversed?

The Feds are limited in when they can enter into a state legal matter.

They must wait until it makes it way to the Federal court.

Now, with the Bill of Rights, there should a consistent protection in all 50 states.

In terms of the 2nd Amendment, the problem is we have not had a pro-2nd Amendment Supreme Court that sees that all restrictions on gun ownership violates that right.

We should have the same rights as Vermont (of all states!) which has a right to carry with no permits necessary.

The failure is in defining the 2nd Amendment and enforcing that right as an individual right that cannot be infringed upon by any state.

It was based on this reasoning that the GOP congress sought to remove the gun ban in DC (since Congress oversees the DC gov't) stating it was an infringment on individual liberty.

109 posted on 10/29/2004 1:11:04 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You make vague remarks about my on point answers.

Here was your "on point" answer that you were referring to:

"To paraphrase what Justice Harlan once said:
--- 'The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Privilege & Immunities 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. ...'"

In reality, Harlan was talking about the "due process" clause, not the P&I clause. But of course, facts absolutely don't matter to you. All you care about is whether something sounds vaguely good enough that you can just assume it means whatever you want it to mean. And you wonder why you're the laughingstock around here?

110 posted on 10/29/2004 1:11:41 PM PDT by inquest (We have more people patrolling Bosnia's borders than we have patrolling our own borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Today we need that secondary defense because enumerated powers has been abandoned in the face of rampant nationalism.

Again the issue is not 'nationalism' vs 'localism', the issue is the individual vs the state, all states, local, state and federal.

The Federal gov't is trying to overthrow a gun ban in DC as being an infringment of individual rights.

In the Alaska debate, the question was asked, would the Senate candidates support such action. The GOP candidate did, but the Democrat (who stated he supported the 2nd Amendment) then made an appeal to the right of 'local control'.

The point is that each level of gov't must defend individual rights and each is a threat to the same because each has power it can use against the individual.

The cry of 'states rights' is a misleading one since 'states' can be just as abusive of individual freedoms as the federal gov't.

In fact Madison's appeal for a federal gov't was that a larger gov't was less likely to be corrupted then a small one.

111 posted on 10/29/2004 1:17:40 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
In fact Madison's appeal for a federal gov't was that a larger gov't was less likely to be corrupted then a small one.

The flip side, however, is that it's also harder to un-corrupt it once corruption sets in.

112 posted on 10/29/2004 1:20:40 PM PDT by inquest (We have more people patrolling Bosnia's borders than we have patrolling our own borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"One, outlaw it on the state level as is polygymy (which won't happen-but should) or two, define marriage on the federal level so that no state can redefine it."

Well, that would protect the word 'marriage,' but in either case it would be denying some people due process. The due process I refer to is following the proper rules for gaining legal access and recognition.

If the attempt fails, as I mentioned it might, at least the group cannot claim deprivation of rights or denial of due process. Let the people decide. Not the courts or Congress. Else we're going to have a group of some very unhappy people out there who are going to feel dis-enfranchised. We have a system that will insure equality to all. Give them an opportunity to use it, without destroying the meaning and institution of marriage.

Maybe in another hundred years, the people might get used to the idea of homosexual 'relationships' and regard them on par to married folks and the Jim and Jim Crow laws will fade into oblivion. ;>

I've suggested in the past they use another word to describe their relationship. Even a fabricated word, such as 'smerge,' for instance. If they want to get smerged, let them get smerged and live in a state of smergiage. If they want to smerge each other and be on legal par with similar partnerships, let them push for an amendment that will recognize and ackowledge their class as smerged folks.

113 posted on 10/29/2004 1:22:31 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Well, that would protect the word 'marriage,' but in either case it would be denying some people due process.

Any more than anti-polygamy laws violate due process?

114 posted on 10/29/2004 1:32:04 PM PDT by inquest (We have more people patrolling Bosnia's borders than we have patrolling our own borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
from the article
Our modern regulatory and redistributive state--the state the Framers sought explicitly to prohibit--has arisen largely since 1937, and primarily through just two clauses in the Constitution, the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause respectively. It is striking that this is so, for if the Framers had meant for Congress to be able to do virtually anything it wanted through those two simple clauses, why would they have bothered to enumerate Congress' other powers, much less defend the doctrine of enumerated powers throughout the Federalist Papers?

The explanation, of course, is that the Framers intended no such thing. The modern state arose through judicial legerdemain, following Franklin Roosevelt's notorious 1937 Court-packing scheme.

With the Court's evisceration of the doctrine of enumerated powers, the modern regulatory and redistributive state poured through the opening. One result of the subsequent explosion of federal power, of course, was the contraction of state power where the two conflicted--and the attendant federalism dilemmas.

At the same time, individual liberty contracted as well--the preservation of which was supposed to be the very purpose of government.

The corruption of the meaning of the Constitution and the supremacy of a national government which has usurped powers not granted to it by consent of the governed has resulted in less liberty for all Americans. Those who feel they can improve upon the Constitution as intended by the Founders are invariably mistaken.
115 posted on 10/29/2004 1:35:23 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"Any more than anti-polygamy laws violate due process?"

Correct. If ten people (regardless of gender) want to get 'unioned,' let them create a word to describe their relationship and try to get an amendment passed that would recognized their class and afford them protection under the Civil Rights Act.

(Jeez, I was hoping everyone would understand what I was implying -- that such an amendment would not pass, but the process would be there for those who chose to pursue their folly and would thereby be unable to claim deprivation of rights.)

116 posted on 10/29/2004 1:44:28 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. - Chief Justice Marshall"

Seems to me the intention to apply them was de facto resident in Article VI, para 2.

In that the BOR is regarded as part and parcel of the Constitution itself, it is regarded as the supreme law of the land. Therefore, anything in any State constitution which is contrary to the BOR is repugnant. For what are the Bill of Rights, if they are not the rights of the individual? Certainly not the rights of the state or federal government.

The BOR is supreme over the repugnancies of congress (laws congress passes which are not in pursuance to the BOR), over laws based upon treaties, over any court decision, and definitely supreme over any state law or state constitutional provision. The states ratified the federal constitution and agreed to that proviso by their ratification of it.

And if that is not the way it is, it will be the next time around.

117 posted on 10/29/2004 2:00:25 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Are you saying that the RKBA or free speech is a privilege and immunity of citizens of the United States?

In the sense that all of our rights, liberties, privileges & immunities, and life itself can be taken away by Constitutional due process of law, paulsen, --- yes.

I doubt that even you can dispute that.

Now again, answer the question..
-Why- do you see requiring due process as being "perverted"?
It makes no sense to want a State to have the power to ignore due process.

What kind of a statement is that? Geez, tpaine, it also makes no sense to WANT a State to have the power to torture little kittens, either.

Exactly right paulsen, it makes no sense, so why do you claim that States have the power to ignore our BOR's & the 14th Amendments due process clause?

It's perverted to find some subjective "fundamental right to liberty" covered by the due process clause of the 14th amendment and then to selectively apply portions of the BOR to the states.

You're merely chanting "its perverted".. Can you tell us why?

This process gave us abortion, sodomy, nude dancing, and a host of other inexplicable and twisted decisions made by a judicial oligarchy.

That's your delusion, not a factual comment.

You're saying that a "citizen of the United States", not even a citizen of a state, has the RKBA?

Millions of US Citizens did, & still do, -- in all territories of the USA.

Sheesh. That gives them more rights than an Illinois citizen living in Chicago.

Exactly one of my points. -- 'Equal protection' means that all citizens should have an uninfringed RKBA's, irregardless of which state or territory they happen to be passing through.

Our present day mishmash of local/state/fed gun 'laws' are a Constitutional nightmare. -- One you advocate. -- Why is that true?

118 posted on 10/29/2004 2:02:13 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The corruption of the meaning of the Constitution and the supremacy of a national government which has usurped powers not granted to it by consent of the governed has resulted in less liberty for all Americans. Those who feel they can improve upon the Constitution as intended by the Founders are invariably mistaken.

Some become so enamoured of having the federal government enlist in their pet cause they will corrupt the meaning of "consent of the governed" so as to deny that there has been an usurpation.

119 posted on 10/29/2004 2:14:14 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Correct. If ten people (regardless of gender) want to get 'unioned,' let them create a word to describe their relationship and try to get an amendment passed that would recognized their class and afford them protection under the Civil Rights Act.

I believe this is what Heinlien described as a "Line Marriage" (from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, IIRC).

120 posted on 10/29/2004 2:17:47 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"We should have the same rights as Vermont (of all states!) which has a right to carry with no permits necessary.

The failure is in defining the 2nd Amendment and enforcing that right as an individual right that cannot be infringed upon by any state.

Agreed. Nor even manipulated or modified by the federal government. The gun laws of 1934 was a serious intrusion, but as with prohibition, nobody came against it. With prohibition, the constitution was descrated twice. Once by passing the amendment, and the second time by removing it.

121 posted on 10/29/2004 2:19:42 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
For what are the Bill of Rights, if they are not the rights of the individual?

They are a list of restrictions on the federal government, not on the states, as Justice Marshall pointed out. Our rights don't come from the Bill of Rights, they come from God. If the supremacy clause applied the BOR to the states, then the Fourteenth amendment would not have been necessary.

Per the Tenth amendment The feds aren't supposed to be able to act outside their enumerated powers, but they have usurped powers they shouldn't have from the states and from the We, the people.

122 posted on 10/29/2004 2:21:40 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"If the supremacy clause applied the BOR to the states, then the Fourteenth amendment would not have been necessary."

As a matter of fact, the Fourteenth amendment WASN'T necessary. It was a creative device which I refer to as the doctrine of substitution. All Congress had to do was pass an act, (or even an E.O. by the president) that freed slaves are heretofore to be considered Citizens.

That would have immediately ended the concern over the treatment, protection and acceptance of blacks and others who were in a state of political fog after the civil war, for the word, Citizen, was already defined in the Constitution.

BUT

In order to do that, the constitution would have to be amended anyway to change the definition of the word, Citizen (upper case) and to re-define the percentages of what was considered to be a full human being.

Instead, Congress went straight for the amendment, creating a substitute word, 'citizen,' (lower-case) for Citizen, and embellishing the amendment with suitable phraseology describing and acknowledging something that was similar to unalienable rights enjoyed by Citizens.

Congress can't grant unalienable rights, so it merely re-described and acknowledged them for blacks and other non-Citizens, while creating a protectorate for them to enjoy those rights and privilidges -- the Federal United States, which over-layed the union of States geographically.

I think they did the right thing under the circumstances.

But that in no way dimished the supremacy of unalienable rights, both enumerated and non-enumerated, of Citizens, IMO.

123 posted on 10/29/2004 2:54:20 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"so why do you claim that States have the power to ignore our BOR's & the 14th Amendments due process clause?"

And where did I "claim" any such thing? I have no idea what "our BOR's" even means.

124 posted on 10/29/2004 2:55:54 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

Ok, so if we suppose your smerging idea doesn't work, is an amendment necessary to protect traditional marriage? Or should that be left to the states?


125 posted on 10/29/2004 3:00:53 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"Ok, so if we suppose your smerging idea doesn't work, is an amendment necessary to protect traditional marriage? Or should that be left to the states?"

Neither.

Ideally, all the courts have to do is acknowledge the truth of the matter -- that the word, 'marriage,' still means what it always has meant throughout history, across continents and cultures.

If the courts screw up, I would not take it lightly.

Beyond than, I sayeth no more.

126 posted on 10/29/2004 3:18:41 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

Well we can't count on those bastard judges so that's why we need the damned amendment!


127 posted on 10/29/2004 3:25:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Ideally, all the courts have to do is acknowledge the truth of the matter -- that the word, 'marriage,' still means what it always has meant throughout history, across continents and cultures.

If the courts decree that "marriage" is limited to the union of a man and a woman, the next thing we'll see is the liberal eggheads in academia advancing the notion that "man" and "woman" aren't genders, but "social roles".

128 posted on 10/29/2004 3:29:56 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
You're ignoring Art. VI and the Amendments.

The Bill of Rights is not a "list of our rights," it is a list of restrictions on the federal government.

The Bill of Rights lists some of our rights, and it restricts the federal, state, & local governments from infringing on all of our rights, enumerated or not.

Regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights never applied to the state governments until the passage of the fourteenth amendment.

Art VI clearly says that our Constitution is the "Law of the Land", -- the "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".
This is a fact, not my interpretation.

"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated... In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." - Chief Justice Marshall Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Quoting the oft refuted opinion in 'Barron' means nothing. Marshall was proved wrong in that he ignored the clear words & intent of Article VI.

129 posted on 10/29/2004 4:22:23 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Any evidence for that pain? Any source at all?

I didn't think so.

130 posted on 10/29/2004 4:28:58 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
The failure is in defining the 2nd Amendment and enforcing that right as an individual right that cannot be infringed upon by any state. Agreed. Nor even manipulated or modified by the federal government. The gun laws of 1934 was a serious intrusion, but as with prohibition, nobody came against it. With prohibition, the constitution was descrated twice. Once by passing the amendment, and the second time by removing it.

Also remember, that the first gun control laws were made in some of the Southern States, I believe after reconstruction.

The Federal gov't should have knocked those laws down, but because of 'states rights'did not.

In the case of Prohibition, I believe the Constitution was not assaulted since that was a Constitutional amendment, ratified by the States.

I am not sure how the amendment was removed

131 posted on 10/29/2004 4:33:02 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Your nitpicking makes you the laughingstock, not me.

Find some real points to debate or shut up.


132 posted on 10/29/2004 4:33:11 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The corruption of the meaning of the Constitution and the supremacy of a national government which has usurped powers not granted to it by consent of the governed has resulted in less liberty for all Americans. Those who feel they can improve upon the Constitution as intended by the Founders are invariably mistaken.

Exactly right.

The problem has been in seeing the Constitution as a 'living'document rather then a 'legal'document.

Thus, the liberals have been able to 'stretch'the meanings of the General Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause to push an activist agenda against individual liberty, not against states rights.

133 posted on 10/29/2004 4:37:45 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"In the case of Prohibition, I believe the Constitution was not assaulted since that was a Constitutional amendment, ratified by the States."

The prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors in the United States was repugnant to the supreme law which protects private property and the disposal and sale thereof.

What next? Cream Soda?

134 posted on 10/29/2004 5:22:39 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Words have meanings.

Destroy the meaning of the word 'marriage'and you have destroyed civilization itself.

No other insitution is as important to a society as marriage, that is why the Left has attacked it with easy divorce laws and now homosexual 'marriage'

135 posted on 10/29/2004 5:24:49 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

I was not speaking of the merits of prohibition, just that it did follow a constitutional procedure, that showed the majority of states (people) wanted it.


136 posted on 10/29/2004 5:26:52 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Exactly right paulsen, it makes no sense, so why do you claim that States have the power to ignore our BOR's & the 14th Amendments due process clause?

You're saying that a "citizen of the United States", not even a citizen of a state, has the RKBA?

Millions of US Citizens did, & still do, -- in all territories of the USA.

Sheesh. That gives them more rights than an Illinois citizen living in Chicago.

Exactly one of my points. -- 'Equal protection' means that all citizens should have an uninfringed RKBA's, irregardless of which state or territory they happen to be passing through.
Our present day mishmash of local/state/fed gun 'laws' are a Constitutional nightmare. -- One you advocate. -- Why is that true? --- Why do you claim that States have the power to ignore our BOR's & the 14th Amendments due process clause?

And where did I "claim" any such thing?

You've claimed on this thread that States, in effect, can ignore due process in writing laws that infringe upon our 2nd Amendment.
Now you claim you did not? -- Get real. Anyone can read your posts claiming that States are not bound to honor our BOR's

I have no idea what "our BOR's" even means.

Is that another of your word-game comments, or are you really flipping out?

137 posted on 10/29/2004 5:40:47 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"Destroy the meaning of the word 'marriage'and you have destroyed civilization itself."

I believe that's the bottom line. A form of 'civilization' would rise from the ashes, but not one that I would want to be a part of.

138 posted on 10/29/2004 5:45:01 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

The Constitution's Article VI is my source, -- as you well know, but cannot admit.

I agree, you think very seldom.


139 posted on 10/29/2004 5:45:15 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Is that another of your word-game comments, or are you really flipping out?

He once opined that he had no idea what a "correct" interpretation of the Commerce Clause was. I provided him with an example, but he didn't care for it much.

140 posted on 10/29/2004 5:45:45 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
And your source as to the intent of Article IV?
141 posted on 10/29/2004 5:46:56 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"I was not speaking of the merits of prohibition, just that it did follow a constitutional procedure, that showed the majority of states (people) wanted it."

Yes, I realize that. I was only placing emphasis on the unconstitutionality of it because it was not given the litmus test of constiutionality before the amendment was passed. Which was later repealed. Which proves that it was of a light and transient reason and should not have been considered. My second point was that it is unconstitutional to remove a part of the supreme law. When the amendment was repealed, that's just what they did. Another violation, albeit a necessary one.

But in so doing, they established a precedent for removing parts of the supreme law.

142 posted on 10/29/2004 5:51:22 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
Yes, I realize that. I was only placing emphasis on the unconstitutionality of it because it was not given the litmus test of constiutionality before the amendment was passed. Which was later repealed. Which proves that it was of a light and transient reason and should not have been considered. My second point was that it is unconstitutional to remove a part of the supreme law. When the amendment was repealed, that's just what they did. Another violation, albeit a necessary one.

But in so doing, they established a precedent for removing parts of the supreme law.

I don't quite understand your reasoning there. The whole point of the process of amendment is adding to or removing parts of the supreme law. It was necessary to pass an amendment because enacting prohibion would have been unconstitutional without it.

143 posted on 10/29/2004 5:56:19 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That's the typical robertpaulsen, robertpaulsen, robertpaulsen, tactic.

He ignores whatever he doesn't care for, then comes back tomorrow with the same specious argument he had yesterday.


144 posted on 10/29/2004 5:57:47 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
What process did they use to repeal it?

Getting a constitutional amendment passed is difficult, I would think getting one removed would be also.

145 posted on 10/29/2004 6:00:57 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Words have meaning.

The framers wrote in Article VI that our Constitution is the "Law of the Land", -- the "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".

This is a fact, not my interpretation.


146 posted on 10/29/2004 6:02:20 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Getting a constitutional amendment passed is difficult, I would think getting one removed would be also.

Harder, actually. AFAIK there is no process for removing an amendment once it's ratified and passed.

147 posted on 10/29/2004 6:03:55 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
So how did they get rid of the Prohibition amendment?

It seemed when FDR got elected, it got repealed.

148 posted on 10/29/2004 6:06:47 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

The passed another amendment which nullified the first one.


149 posted on 10/29/2004 6:07:42 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS, 1926, ( those interested in the WOD should check it out) [Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae8489003ca.htm


150 posted on 10/29/2004 6:10:21 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-391 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