Replies

I really am not trying to start a flame war. I apologize if my attitude came across that way. I am curious as to your thoughts on a couple of things.

I realize we've gotten far off the track of our original discussion, but I'm curious what you think about these things.

1. I take it you disagree with the "incorporation" idea. So, am I safe in assuming you have no problem with a state or local government establishing a state religion, state run media, a state police that conducts searches and seizures without a warrant, etc. I'm truly interested in how you think this is workable. 2. If my assumption in #1 is correct, doesn't this really mean that all of our personal liberties are derived from the state? I realize we've gotten far off the track of our original discussion, but I'm curious what you think about these things.

I originally wasn't going to respond to this. I feel like I'm talking to my father. I'm asked questions, and I attempt to respond honestly, and with great thought. Instead of you responding to what I've said, you just ask more questions. Like I said, it's like talking to my dad; it's an interrogation.

I do disagree with the "incorporation idea". If you look at the debates that centered around the 14th amendment, it's obvious that's not what was intended. I have no problem with state religions. It embodies the spirit of federalism we supposedly embrace. They were in existence at the founding of this country, and continued up through the 19th century, in keeping with the US Constituion. I believe tithing was forced in some cases. Surely this isn't a secret.

State run media? We already have that. States issue press releases just like anyone else. You'll have to be much more specific. What state are you in? Does your state constitution guarantee a right to free speech? Mine does. Article I, Section 9 of the Idaho Constitution says:

"SECTION 9. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

Search and seizure is a different amendment, that AFAIK, relates to an absolute right. Unless your copy of the Bill of rights reads differently than mine, there is no specific prohibition on Congress in the 4th amendment; it applies to the powers of government in general. No incorporation is needed. It's an affirmation of an absolute right that is associated with the unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration. Same goes with the 2nd amendment.

Certainly, you don't believe that State governments, regardless of their own constitutions, can ban the possession of firearms, do you?

It's based on an unalienable right. It's not just a federal restriction.

No, your number 2 is ridiculous. The bill of rights does not grant rights, it restricts government. I don't know how you conclude that personal liberties are derived from the state. Personal liberties are derived from our Creator.

Again, as I have said earlier, you must believe that the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment in error. Although they referred to Congress, you must believe that they either really meant for it to all levels of government, or you believe they were wrong about applying it to only Congress.