Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: RayStacy
Yep, there was a lot of fancy language used, & compromises made, -- in order ratify our Bill of Rights, -- but they're still pretty clear to me.
Do you have a problem with States obeying them as the Law of the Land?

Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states.

You're missing the main point of it. The --- "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" -- is very clear language.

The Bill of Rights is irrelevant.

Our RKBA's is "irrelevant"? Bet me.

I am discussing the ORIGINAL cons, which was ratified w/out a BOR. Furthermore, the BOR did NOT apply to the states until after the Civil War.

You're parroting the Statist line. Art VI proves you wrong.

The BOR applied ONLY to the Federal Gov. Many of the states, for example, (VA included) actually had state supported churches. If you lived in VA,you paid taxes to support the state church. That simple. Again, the prohibitions in Art 1, sec 10 are indeed thin.

Thank you ray, -- its always fun to see another anti-constitutionalist out himself on FR.

24 posted on 10/28/2004 8:12:55 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 17 | View Replies ]

To: tpaine

Not at all sure what you're talking about here. Art VI does not prohibit the states from doing as they please re civil liberties. Again, MANY states (six, I believe)had state supported churches. What is an RKBA??? The BOR IS irrelevant here -- it simply did not apply to the states until after the civil war. Read McCullough vs. MD, brought in 1814, I think. Read the 1st amendment.... CONGRESS shall make no law. Don't say anything about state legs.

63 posted on 10/29/2004 6:43:50 AM PDT by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: RayStacy; tpaine
RayStacey said,

"Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states."

Re-visiting here, as I would like to use this to say that even though many feel that the second amendment was not an incorporated (right to bear arms) and was written to limit the powers of the federal government, the amendment makes no sense unless it is INFERRING that the right to bear arms is a right already held by the people. Otherwise, why even write the amendment?

The amendment was written as a further check on the federal government not to infringe on that right specifically.

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?

How many times does the Constitution have to tell us that it loves us? ;>

269 posted on 11/10/2004 7:50:15 AM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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