Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine
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.
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.
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.
And where did I "claim" any such thing? I have no idea what "our BOR's" even means.
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.
Well we can't count on those bastard judges so that's why we need the damned amendment!
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".
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.
I didn't think so.
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
Your nitpicking makes you the laughingstock, not me.
Find some real points to debate or shut up.
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.
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?
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'
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.
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?
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.
The Constitution's Article VI is my source, -- as you well know, but cannot admit.
I agree, you think very seldom.
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.
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.