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.
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 2nd Amendment 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.
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.
It does. -- You're just refusing to read & understand it.
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.
Sorry Ray, -- but after reading your recent posts to paulsen, -- I'm convinced you're just another sycophant on 'states rights', not worth countering in detail.. -- I'll concentrate on refuting your idol paulsen.