Posted on 10/31/2005 8:46:21 AM PST by antaresequity
SNIP - ALITO DISSENTING OPINION
Maj. Op. at ----. In other words, the majority argues in effect that the private, purely intrastate possession of machine guns has a substantial effect on the interstate machine gun market.
This theory, if accepted, would go far toward converting Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce into "a plenary police power." Lopez, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1633. If there is any sort of interstate market for a commodity--and I think that it is safe to assume that there is some sort of interstate market for practically everything--then the purely intrastate possession of that item will have an effect on that market, and outlawing private possession of the item will presumably have a substantial effect. Consequently, the majority's theory leads to the conclusion that Congress may ban the purely intrastate possession of just about anything. But if Lopez means anything, it is that Congress's power under the Commerce Clause must have some limits. Cf. Charles Fried, Foreword: Revolutions?, 109 HARV.L.REV. 13, 36-37 (1995).
(Excerpt) Read more at cs.cmu.edu ...
LOL.
Yes... I am also aware that the Courts of today don't see things that way. That is because they are basing their decisions on almost a century of increasingly screwed up rulings.
Let me say this slowly. The Federalist Papers were written in 1788. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution was ratified in 1791. Whatever the Federalist Papers have to say about a bill of rights in general, they cannot be taken as an analysis of the congressional history of, or the original meaning of the Bill of Rights of 1791. Nor can the Federalist Papers provide any analysis of or interpretation of the state ratifying debates for the Bill of Rights of 1791. Therefore the precise purpose, scope, or application of the Bill of Rights of 1791 cannot be found within the pages of the Federalist Papers.
Thanks - wnated to get that clear up front.
Now, since the power to regulate RKBA was not granted to the feds - what would the effect be if the cititzens of the state of say maryland DID grant that power to the legislature of that state . . . .
The one and only amendment that lends itself to incorporation was the one beginning "Congress shall make no law...". And that is simply not a function of the courts anyway. If the people wanted to incorporate it then the people could and should have done it through the amendment process.
Other amendments such as the Second don't need incorporation or an amendment, they mean what they say.
And you can't choose to give up rights. That would be like saying that if the citizens of Texas decided to give the power to the state to make slavery legal, it would be okie dokie.
Doesn't work that way.
"Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of community than in the legislative body." - Madison
He goes on for sometime, even talks briefly about the "tyranny of the majority" and how a BoR could over come this. Giving us all one, equal, protected set of Rights to bind us together as a Nation. Not as a minimum, but only as a starting point to be grown upon by each State. Start with a firm foundation kind of thing.
Do you begin to get the idea yet?
"Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:
New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.
North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."
Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York."
Marshalls's opinion not withstanding, it seems silly to suggest that the rights of the Citizens of The United States can be infringed by any of the several states.
This looks good. Bump for later.
No. Not all. Just those that infringe RKBA. Product liability laws enforced at the State level would still be legal. I couldn't make a gun that blows up every third round and consider myself protected under the 2nd or any State RKBA provision.
;-)
It took hanging around on FR for me to finally understand the nature and impact of the 14th Amendment. For that I am grateful. Its clear that the 14th "muddied" the waters of the RKBA, and that successive court decisions since its passage have not helped the matter.
This would massively upset the BATFE applecart, make the Brady Bunch melt down completely, and possibly reduce the over all value of some NFA collectors "retirement stash".
But... it would be the RIGHT thing to do. We need our Freedom more than they need their laws. This should be self evident.
States wanted to keep their own authority regarding religion and other such matters. Thus, the scope of the First Amendment is limitted to Congress. You suggest that the authors and ratifiers deliberately wanted the First Amendment to apply only to Congress rather than to the states, and wrote the language to make that clear. If they likewise wanted to make the Second applicable only to Congress, is there any reason to believe they would not likewise have made that clear?
I don't understand what you mean here.
To me, the Fourteenth Amendment is really pretty clear. It is the Supreme Court which seems to have invented an "incorporation" process which is nowhere mentioned to preclude lower courts from reading the clear language of that amendment.
I would like to alter that a tad if you don't mind.
Second Amendment, America's ONLY Homeland Security! That's more accurate. Blackbird.
Senator Spector will not like this.
I saw him a few weeks ago expressing anger (it appeared to me ) that the "Rehnquist Court" in the Lopez case did not allow Congress to control guns in a school zone, using interstate commerce.
It is tyranny.
That is why I am dedicating as much of my time and energy as I can in support of the upcoming petition drive to add the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the California Constitution.
It's been clear to me for some time that Democratic politicians are more anti-gun than the average Democrat. Getting the RKBA on the ballot provides an opportunity for liberal politicians to put up or shut up.
Hurricane Katrina has been a friend to gun owners, illustrating just how thin the thread holding civilization together can be.
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.