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 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-391 last
To: Ken H

Not only is there no case law, there's no human being supporting this argument. It's perhaps not the way I would have done it, but the fed could always arm the mil the same way it armed the regular army. And again, IF!!!!!!!!!!!!! the fed gov passed a law such that it required all men be armed for mil service, I've already said I'd like it. No such law exists now, and the states have the power to regulate firearms.


351 posted on 11/10/2004 7:00:47 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
No such law exists now, and the states have the power to regulate firearms.

With your view of the Constitution, the right to defend your family and yourself with a firearm can be criminalized by a State. And I know you just hate it!

352 posted on 11/10/2004 7:16:03 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Yes it can, and yes I do. Again, what I WANT in the cons is irrelevant. As an adult, I have no problem whatsoever realizing that the Framers failed to load up the cons with everything that I would ever desire. I realize it and I deal with it.


353 posted on 11/10/2004 7:21:40 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Ken H wrote:

With your view of the Constitution, the right to defend your family and yourself with a firearm can be criminalized by a State.
And I know you just hate it!

You just don't understand Ken!
If you wrap yourself in our flag, define yourself as a member for a long time, claim not to be a faker or a troll and love guns, you can say most anything to establish that States can infringe upon our Constitutional RKBA's.

It's for the cause! The cause of 'states rights' is more important than any individuals right to self defense.
- You must get with the agenda. Big brother knows best,

354 posted on 11/10/2004 7:40:22 PM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound; Ken H
Eastbound:

If the federal government acknowledges that right is held by the people, in the clear wording of the amendment, Article VI is a further safeguard for that right, as Article VI tells the state that it cannot infringe on that right either by virtue of the fact that the right keep and bear arms is a right held by the people.

Let me repeat: neither the fedguv nor the state can infringe upon the right to bear arms. The amendment does not have to be incorporated, as it is already an admission and acknowledgment that the people's right right to keep and bear arms was pre-existing. How plain can it get?

Ken H:

Is it your position that a State can violate a personal right?

Government is the controlled, and presumably just, infringement of rights in the service of preserving and defending the rights of others. So, to state categorically that recognition of a preexisting right implies that the right may never be infringed by the state seems mistaken.

Actually, all rights are inherent in the person, weather currently recognized or not. Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.

355 posted on 11/10/2004 7:58:54 PM PST by Database
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Database
Government is the controlled, and presumably just, infringement of rights in the service of preserving and defending the rights of others. So, to state categorically that recognition of a preexisting right implies that the right may never be infringed by the state seems mistaken.

Do you think a State may legitimately disarm its citizens?

Actually, all rights are inherent in the person, weather currently recognized or not. Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.

Is that not the current situation with the First and Fourth Amendments vs the Second?

What are your thoughts on whether USSC should incorporate the Second as well?

356 posted on 11/10/2004 8:42:06 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
We may have a point of agreement that I missed earlier. From #316:

The whole doctrine of inc. is completely bogus, invented like much of sc law. IOW, the BOR still does NOT apply to the states. However, if the SC insists on saying that ANY part of the BOR applies to the states, then I DEMAND that the whole thing apply, most especially including the 2nd amend.

The USSC has already said that the First and Fourth Amendments apply to the States.

Are you in favor of USSC incorporating the Second?

357 posted on 11/10/2004 9:12:49 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Do you think a State may legitimately disarm its citizens?

Philosophically, I think it is unjust for the state to remove the means to defend oneself. I'm not a fan of prior restraint in general. Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution. If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.

We usually react to this philosophic/pragmatic disparity by saying, "I don't agree with the law, but that's the law." We then go about changing that law in the political arena.

Database:
Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.

Ken H:
Is that not the current situation with the First and Fourth Amendments vs the Second?

My comments were given from a perspective of philosophy. Your description of the uneven treatment of the 1st and 4th vs 2nd ammendments is a practical issue of government and law. Is their treatment is unequal? Yes. Do I think that's right? No. However, the unequal treatment is certainly not based on whether the issues in the respective ammendments preexisted the BOR.

What are your thoughts on whether USSC should incorporate the Second as well?

The bill of rights is less a list of personal rights, as limitations on the federal government in order to protect individual rights in relation to federal government power. So, I view the incorporation of the BOR by the USSC an overstepping of its power. It is essentially making up laws.

358 posted on 11/10/2004 10:22:03 PM PST by Database
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Database
Database wrote:

Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution.
If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.

Wrong. The 'people' have no such authority to so delegate, -- under our republican form of Constitutional government.

As Justice Marshal noted in Marbury, 1803:

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

It defies all common sense to write a Constitution for a United States, then claim that separate States can ignore its Amendments protecting individual rights.
It is constitutionally illegitimate for a state to infringe on our RKBA's.

359 posted on 11/11/2004 4:45:48 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Absolutely and positively. Nothing could be more corrupt than the SC picking and choosing which parts of the BOR it wants to incorporate. If the BOR was incorporated by the 14th amendment, then the WHOLE thing was incorporated. As I noted somewhere else: either the 14th was meant or it was NOT meant to make the BOR apply to the states, but it WAS DAMN SURE NOT MEANT to mean the SC gets to decide which rights apply, to whom, when, and get to do so at its leisure. That much I can be sure of.


360 posted on 11/11/2004 5:00:39 AM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; RayStacy
Ken H asked:
Are you in favor of USSC incorporating the Second?

Absolutely and positively.
If the BOR was incorporated by the 14th amendment, then the WHOLE thing was incorporated.

'Incorporation' is not needed, when it is realized that the 14th simply reiterated that the BOR's always did apply to ALL levels of government in the USA, just as Article VI plainly says.
Incorporation is a legalistic fiction, invented by the USSC to increase its power.

As I noted somewhere else: either the 14th was meant or it was NOT meant to make the BOR apply to the states,

Reading the ratification debates from 1868 makes the issue clear. The 14th was meant to re-affirm that the BOR's applied to the states. Much of the debate centered on States that were infringing on former slaves RKBA's.

361 posted on 11/11/2004 5:39:34 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

The BOR was never meant to apply to the states, and I thought your position was NOT based on that falsehood. See the one dozen cases below:

"As finally drafted and ratified, however, the first ten amends to the cons – the bor – limited only the fed gov. In 1833, the Supreme Court explicitly held (Barron V. Balt) that the BOR restrained only the fed gov, not the states… The idea of imposing a national standard on the states was rejected by the Sup Ct. in 1873 when it held that the primary purpose of the Civ War amends was to guarantee freedom for blacks. Moreover privs and immuns were to be protected by the states, not the nat gove. Other decisions during this period also refused to apply the BOR to the states, (Pervear v. Commonwealth, Twitchell v. the commonwealth, the justices v. murray, walker v. sauvinet, US v. cruikshank, hurtado v. CA, presser v. ILL, spies v. ill, mcelvaine vs. brush, o’neill v. Vermont, Maxwell v. dow,

Pg 391 of Constitutional Structures: Separated Powers and Federalism, Volume 1 of Amer. Con. Law, Louis Fisher, McGraw Hill, 1990


362 posted on 11/11/2004 6:02:26 AM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Why does the 14th amend fail to even mention the BOR?


363 posted on 11/11/2004 6:03:45 AM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
RayStacy wrote:

Why does the 14th amend fail to even mention the BOR?

The 14th makes its points as written. It does not need to refer to previous Amendments in order to be understood.

364 posted on 11/11/2004 8:07:54 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Database
Philosophically, I think it is unjust for the state to remove the means to defend oneself. I'm not a fan of prior restraint in general. Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution. If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.

Isn't a government violating a fundamental right by removing your means of defending yourself and your family?

We usually react to this philosophic/pragmatic disparity by saying, "I don't agree with the law, but that's the law." We then go about changing that law in the political arena.

If your State outlawed gun ownership, would you turn in your firearms?

365 posted on 11/11/2004 8:10:23 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; Database

"If your State outlawed gun ownership, would you turn in your firearms?"


Could be an interesting answer, seeing that database lives in CA, and they have indeed "outlawed" certain types of guns.

Did you turn in any 'assault weapons', db? -- More to the point, do you think anyone in our fair State did?


366 posted on 11/11/2004 8:55:23 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Nothing could be more incorrect. It does not need to refer to previous amendments to make its point??????????????????? Well it sure would have helped, since it is so incredibly unclear that you are about the only human being on earth who reads it the way you do.


367 posted on 11/11/2004 9:25:08 AM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
Amusing retort..

Obviously, our 14th Amendment is only "incredibly unclear" to those who want to infringe upon our individual rights.
368 posted on 11/11/2004 12:36:08 PM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
"James Madison tried to give the federal government such power but that was rejected by the convention."

I thought the Constitution was created to secure our rights? Looks to me like they provided a way to over-ride state laws and constitutions which infringed on rights with the 'notwithstanding' clause of Article VI.

< snip >

You already know that the Bill Of Rights granted no new powers to the federal government but further restriced the use what powers it had.

It's obvious that Amendment 1 says Congress shall pass no laws, etc. But that is peculiar to that amendment alone.

Amendment 2 appears to be a declaration to all governments, as it did not include the word, 'congress.' Again, the 'notwithstanding' clause should clarify the inclusion of state governments as well.

"No doubt you'll recall that Madison again tried to give the federal government that power to protect some rights from the states in the Bill of Rights, but again it was rejected by congress."

Then why did they include the 'notwithstanding' clause? Exactly WHAT did the clause prevent the state's and courts from legislating if it were not laws and amendments repugnant to and not in pursuance to the Bill of rights/Constitution (a seamless document)?

"The Founders recieve as little regard from people who want to find a federal protection of their RKBA as it does from those who want to find a federal protection of their "right to privacy"."

I suppose if someone wanted to sue for privacy, it would have to go to the SCOTUS. That's what happened, and they got their privacy.

BUT something is not consistent here. A few wanted to sue for keeping and bearing arms, but the SCOTUS would not hear the case. Something is amiss. Homicide is a state issue, so tell me why the Fedguv got involved with Roe? Seems to me their logic is faulty, unless the court wanted to encourage both the murder of the unborn and the unarmed. In either case, they violated the protection of life with Roe and left the people at the mercy of killers with gun control laws.

"But we just can't have a living constitution. Federal RKBA have to be found in the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities". Like it or not."

Sorry, but life is not a privilege or immunity decreed, pronounced and authorized by government. The people were engaged in self defense with weapons long before the 14th Amendment. The right to Life (which is not a right unless you have the means to protect that life) didn't start with the 14th Amendment. And law enforcement is not in the business of protecting your life, as a matter of record. If not them, who? Why you, of course. Think not that we can authorize policemen to arm themselves to protect their lives if we did not have the same right as individuals?

369 posted on 11/11/2004 12:54:12 PM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I am still waiting for you to provide one single piece of evidence for your positions. Just one. Also, is this your new fallback position -- that the 14th amend is the key to happiness? Have you given up on the BOR applying to the states from inception. Just in case you haven't, please read below. Below is what we call evidence, as opposed to repeating things over and over again.

Pg 391 of Constitutional Structures: Separated Powers and Federalism, Volume 1 of Amer. Con. Law, Louis Fisher, McGraw Hill, 1990

As finally drafted and ratified, however, the first ten amends to the cons – the bor – limited only the fed gov. In 1833, the Supreme Court explicitly held (Barron V. Balt) that the BOR restrained only the fed gov, not the states… The idea of imposing a national standard on the states was rejected by the Sup Ct. in 1873 when it held that the primary purpose of the Civ War amends was to guarantee freedom for blacks. Moreover privs and immuns were to be protected by the states, not the nat gove. Other decisions during this period also refused to apply the BOR to the states.
1. Pervear v. Commonwealth,
2. Twitchell v. The Commonwealth,
3. The Justices v. Murray,
4. Walker v. Sauvinet,
5. US v. Cruikshank,
6. Hurtado v. CA,
7. Presser v. IL,
8. Spies v. IL,
9. McElvaine v. Brush,
10. O’Neill v. Vermont,
11. Maxwell v. Dow


370 posted on 11/11/2004 1:17:59 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Oh, here's some more evidence that was never responded to.

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 32 (emphasis in original)

In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
James Madison, Federalist 39 (emphasis in original)

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.
James Madison, Federalist 40 (emphasis added)

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State government are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security.
James Madison, Federalist 45


371 posted on 11/11/2004 1:19:38 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
"Looks to me like they provided a way to over-ride state laws and constitutions which infringed on rights ... "

Well Madison said they didn't.

He wanted them to- maybe he should have lied and said they did?

372 posted on 11/11/2004 1:20:05 PM PST by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice.. NOT Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Oh, I seem to be slipping. Refer to the Louis Fisher quote and notice again, that the SC ruled that the Civil War amends (13, 14, and 15th) were held NOT to incorporate the BOR.


373 posted on 11/11/2004 1:31:09 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
"I must say that these constant attempts by Freepers for a federal protection of rights- much though it irritates me LOL!- is just what Madison did. It's a shame it wasn't accomplished until the 14th Amendment, but it just wasn't possible until the federal government had proved itself to the people and enough states were willing to combine to destroy slavery."

As a matter of history and fact, the 14th was passed in order for the the federal government to bestow priviliges and immunities (heretofore called 'unalienable rights') upon non-Citizens who just walked off the plantation, free as a bird by virtue of Amendment 13.

Our government cannot bestow 'rights,' per se, so it did the next best thing when it realized the states were going to be slow in recognizing non-Citizens were of equal stature and status. Even Lincoln didn't want non-Citizens living in his neighborhood. No one will argue that the states provided protection for non-Citizens, nor were they compelled to admit them to their Citizenry as equals under existing laws.

If the states were not going to protect them, then the federal government had to protect them. In order to do that, they had to create a new identity for them and a federal zone and jurisdiction for them to live where federal law would protect them -- which it did with the 14th which allowed them to exist as citizens of the federal United States, and of the states in general, bestowing upon them similar benefits as free men enjoyed.

Just because slavery was abolished, that did not automatically confer any special privileges or rights to the slaves. Those privileges had to be conferred and recognized through federal legislation in conjunction with the 14th Amendment which served as the launching pad.

The new designation for these people was referred to as 'citizen,' -- a federal identifier. The 14th did NOT apply to Citizens, whose unalienable rights were not questioned, and were, in fact, already recognized and protected and required no such amendment to protect them further.

"To a great extent the 14th Amendment brought Madison's original constitutional scheme to completion by giving the feds a power to protect people from their states."

So long as Citizens traded in their sovereign status to the federal government by contract to be henceforth known as a federal citizen.

But why would they do that? But some did, and still do every day.

374 posted on 11/11/2004 1:42:54 PM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
Amusing retort..
Obviously, our 14th Amendment is only "incredibly unclear" to those who want to infringe upon our individual rights.

I am still waiting for you to provide one single piece of evidence for your positions. Just one.

This thread has all of the evidence you need to understand my positions. Your refusal to 'see' those posts is ludicrous.

Also, is this your new fallback position -- that the 14th amend is the key to happiness?

Whatever.

Have you given up on the BOR applying to the states from inception.

Of course not. The fact is, you just can't 'see' the connection. Tough.

Just in case you haven't, please read below. Below is what we call evidence, --

No, it's a method called cut & paste spamming. -- We've all seen these quotes before.
-- Come up with some valid new points on the subject, or be ignored.

375 posted on 11/11/2004 2:51:42 PM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

You are the single most pathetic human being I have ever encountered. You are amazing to behold. You say the thread possesses all necessary evidence. Here's a clue for you -- repeating something over and over is NOT evidence. I await a single textbook, court ruling, authority, legal text, judge, historian, etc. who supports your position. I notice you didn't answer the question about your new fallback position. Wonder why? I cite 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TWELVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! court cases that support my position, plus the words of a historian who wrote one of the world's most circulated textbooks, plus FOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! quotes from Madison!!!! and Hamilton!!!! and you say it is not evidence, it is spam. Would it count if I mailed or telegraphed the information to you? Would it stop being spam then? You tell me to come up with "valid NEW points" or be ignored!!!!!!!!!!!! You pathetic fool!!! You haven't come up with even ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! point. Your stupidity is breathtaking. And your cute little quote from Tom Paine, designed to make you look like a deep, intellectual thinker ain't fooling anybody. You are a lightweight of the first order. So sorry.


376 posted on 11/11/2004 3:28:57 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Also, I wish you WOULD ignore me. Twice before you said you were done with me, but you always come back for more punishment. How bizarre.


377 posted on 11/11/2004 3:29:46 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Oh, here's some more. You wanted new?
Forrest McDonald explaining the states after the Cons was ratified. This is paraphrased.

All states (except Rhode Island) imposed legal restrictions on various religious sects, and penalties for dissenters, apostates, blasphemers and idolators were numerous and severe. Jews were not allowed to hold political office anywhere.
Novus Ordo Seclorum, The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, Forrest McDonald, University Press of Kansas, 1985, page 42.

Too bad you weren't around to tell "all the states" that the BOR prevented this, lightweight.


378 posted on 11/11/2004 3:35:35 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
RayStacy wrote:

Also, I wish you WOULD ignore me. Twice before you said you were done with me

______________________________________


In your first post this morning, to Ken, you sounded like you had regained your rationality: ---

______________________________________


The USSC has already said that the First and Fourth Amendments apply to the States.
Are you in favor of USSC incorporating the Second?
357 Ken H



Absolutely and positively.
Nothing could be more corrupt than the SC picking and choosing which parts of the BOR it wants to incorporate.
360 RayStacy

______________________________________


--- So I replied, elaborating on what I thought might be a commonality, the irrational behavior of the court on "incorporation" of our BOR's.

I was wrong. You are just as irrational on the subject as the court.
379 posted on 11/11/2004 4:31:31 PM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

What now? I agree -- if the court is going to come up with some bizarre way to apply part x and part y and z of the BOR to the states, then they damn well better apply the whole thing. That, however, is NOT what you have been discussing with me. You have continued to say that the BOR has always applied to the states and that is what was intended. Both of which are false. As I stated earlier -- because the CONS has been utterly destroyed by both the Congress and the SC since at least 1937, and is now completely dead, I favor gun rights by ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER PERIOD NO HOLDS BARRED AT ALL. I don't care if the SC says we all get guns because the Monroe doctrine as described by Jeffersonian agrarians and promulgated by the Amphicitionic Confederacy dictates it. I WANT MY GUNS!! AND I DON'T CARE HOW I GET THEM. I will not, however, pretend that the BOR dictates it. Now does that convince you that I love guns? Or am I still just a faker?


380 posted on 11/11/2004 4:41:46 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy

I WANT MY GUNS!! AND I DON'T CARE HOW I GET THEM. I will not, however, pretend that the BOR dictates it. Now does that convince you that I love
guns? Or am I still just a faker?
-ray-

______________________________________


I'm more convinced that ever that you are deeply confused.

Get some rest.


381 posted on 11/11/2004 5:24:01 PM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Get a clue.


382 posted on 11/11/2004 6:04:53 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
As I stated earlier -- because the CONS has been utterly destroyed by both the Congress and the SC since at least 1937

Are you referring to the wholesale expansion of the size and reach of the Federal government via the Commerce Clause?

It still plagues us today with a huge Federal bureaucracy involving itself in areas such as health care, domestic crime, and education.

Interestingly enough, all Federal gun laws were passed using the Commerce Clause as the grant of authority.

383 posted on 11/11/2004 6:46:43 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Wrong. The 'people' have no such authority to so delegate, -- under our republican form of Constitutional government.

...

It defies all common sense to write a Constitution for a United States, then claim that separate States can ignore its Amendments protecting individual rights. It is constitutionally illegitimate for a state to infringe on our RKBA's.

If I thought as you do, that the supremacy clause applies the BOR to the states, then I would agree. But I don't.

384 posted on 11/11/2004 7:19:39 PM PST by Database
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

That is exactly what I am referring to, and of course, all federal gun laws are completely unconstitutional.


385 posted on 11/11/2004 7:20:56 PM PST by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Isn't a government violating a fundamental right by removing your means of defending yourself and your family?

Government is certainly infringing when it removes a means of self defense. But governments are infringement machines, which is why we want them to be limited in scope.

If your State outlawed gun ownership, would you turn in your firearms?

I'll decline to answer this one on the grounds that the issue if civil disobedience is getting a bit far from the original issue of Federalism (;^)

386 posted on 11/11/2004 7:31:52 PM PST by Database
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Database
Database wrote:

If I thought as you do, that the supremacy clause applies the BOR to the states, then I would agree. But I don't.

Why do you think CA can legitimately infringe on your right to own a socalled 'assault rifle'?

387 posted on 11/11/2004 8:44:02 PM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Why do you think CA can legitimately infringe on your right to own a socalled 'assault rifle'?

I can find nothing in the California constitution which prohibits the state legislature from writing such a law. So I have to conclude that the law is legally legitimate.

388 posted on 11/11/2004 9:28:47 PM PST by Database
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Database





We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
-- Hillary Clinton

I can find nothing in the California constitution which prohibits the state legislature from writing such a law. So I have to conclude that the law is legally legitimate.
-- Database


Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex intelligent behavior.
[Blindly following] Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple stupid behavior.
-- Dee Hock


389 posted on 11/12/2004 5:28:19 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

BUMP


390 posted on 08/25/2005 10:16:01 AM PDT by hypocrite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy

I see you discovered tpaine's true nature :)
I also see that he's outa here. Good Riddance.


391 posted on 10/10/2005 4:49:21 PM PDT by H.Akston (It's all about property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-391 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