Skip to comments.Teaching the Second Amendment
Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
The public education system has tremendous influence in shaping the views of millions of young Americans. In many cases, the public school system is the only exposure that many children have to the Bill of the Rights. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that our nation's teachers are enlightening our young people and teaching them correctly about our rights and the meaning behind them. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of educators in the United States appear to promote an anti-gun agenda or, at the very least, prefer not to teach the Second Amendment in its true light. We base this opinion, in part, on the fact that the United States Parent-Teacher Association and the National Education Association are both openly anti-gun organizations. We further base our opinion on the fact that the public education system at large seems aligned with the left-leaning socialist agenda that also dominates the dinosaur media and the Democractic Party. These are organizations and individuals who side with the enemy during wartime, attack Christian expression while simultaneously supporting public, other-than-Christian religious expression, and support the licensing and registration of guns while secretly conniving to confiscate every one of them.
These are the same people who try to deny that the Second Amendment applies to you and me, but applies to the National Guard instead. These are the same people who conjured up the term, "assault rifle" in an effort to ban semi-automatic rifles. They claim that when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers never intended it to apply to the types of firearm technology available today.
Any red-blooded, patriotic American who understands the true meaning of the Second Amendment is closer in spirit to our Founding Fathers than the sniveling, whiners who call themselves intellectuals. As such, we know that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the American people and is not restricted to muskets. We can further prove the intent of the Founding Fathers by observing how they lived and by reading many of the supporting articles and letters that outline their philosophy on the symbiotic relationship between an armed populace and a government that serves its people.
It is time to demand that our nation's education system duly recognize our Bill of Rights and teach the Second Amendment according to its true intent. You can start by talking to your child and asking them if they are learning about the Constitution in school. If so, take a look at their textbook and see if the Second Amendment is accurately reported. If there is a problem with the textbook or if the Second Amendment is not being taught at all, you may want to talk to your child's principal. You may also want to team up with other parents who share the same views. Teachers have a responsibility to our children and we have a responsibility to see that our nation's teachers are doing their jobs properly.
Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
Given that this is a right secured only from federal infringement, it says that the federal government shall not interfere with the state constructing and stocking libraries for use by the people. Certainly, as with the first amendment restrictions, the federal government can reasonably restrict the kind of books the state library carries.
Now, if the state wishes to allow people to purchase their own books, keep them at home, carry them around, or set a minimum age for buying and reading books, well, the states retain their police powers to do that.
IF the argument had been made that the restrictions in the 1st ammendment pertained to free speech exclusively (therefor exposing the need for such an ammendment), I wonder what debate the Founding Fathers would've had regarding the nuances and subtleties respecting either of our nominations for such ammendment.
Just for arguments sake, suppose the adage: "The pen is mightier than the sword" carried significant weight, and therefor was an issue of contention.
What are they overriding?
Art 6, para 2 says the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and that federal laws supercede state laws. California state law is not violating any part of the U.S. Constitution, and does not conflict with any federal law.
The 2nd amendment, whether it protects an individual right or a collective right, still only applies to federal laws, not state laws.
The 9th amendment says that people have rights, but it does not say that either the federal government or the State of California must protect every single one of them.
The 10th amendment says that since the State of California did not cede their police power to the federal government, the state retains that police power.
The 14th amendment says that states shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. California law does not violate any of these areas -- unless you can show me where.
"Shall not be infringed" means by anyone at any level of government."
Oops. No. Every single court in every single case has stated that the second amendment only applies to federal laws, not state laws. State RKBA laws are guided only by state constitutions (unless the law violates some other part of the U.S. Constitution -- like restricting gun ownership to men only).
"Or are you still pushing the same old BS that States aren't subject to Constitutional restrictions and could bring back slavery if the legislature voted to?"
"What you are pushing isn't Federalism."
Ah, but it is. Some issues such as slavery, women's suffrage, state religion, restricting the press, and others weren't popular, but they were federalism.
If the second amendment stated, "A citizenry well trained in arms, being necessary to the security of a free State ....", then your comparison to a "well educated electorate" would be valid. It doesn't read that way.
The second amendment designates an institution, a Militia, that needed to be well regulated in order to be effective at securing a free state. My "library" is the Militia.
"the benefit of libaries to that of a free State is rather obtuse"
No. You've already stipulated that books are necessary to the security of a free state. And if the Founding Fathers thought that books alone would secure a free state, then there'd be no use for libraries and no need to mention libraries in an amendment.
But they felt it went beyond just books. Books needed to be available to those who didn't have them, didn't see an immediate need for them or couldn't afford them. The library would contain large books that no one would have in their home. The information needed to be organized to be effective. The state needed to appoint librarians.
My analogy holds.
Every single court in every single case has stated that the second amendment only applies to federal laws, not state laws. State RKBA laws are guided only by state constitutions (unless the law violates some other part of the U.S. Constitution -- like restricting gun ownership to men only).Absolutely correct. The "well-regulated" Militia falls under absolute purview of the individual Governors of the sovereign and separate States. All sorts of regulations can be legally applied by force of the State, one being prohibitions against armed men drilling in concert, unless under the direct authority and command of the Governor.
Since all able-bodied men 18 to 45 years of age (65 years if veteran of the organized Militia) are members of the un-organized Militia (as ruled by SCOTUS), and the Militia is under total and complete control of the Governor, then everything concerning Militia matters can wholly and in part be regulated by the Governor (as they see fit).
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So no, California law cannot trump "shall not be infringed". Except in your twisted little world where a Judge, also bound by this same clause, can just ignore it.
Also, States ratify Amendments. Once an Amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the "Supreme law of the Land". Just like the Laws they pass. No incorperation necessary.
You can run from this, but it doesn't make you... or the courts... correct.
Air, being necessary to live, the right of the people to breath shall not be infringed.
This does not in any way mean that air is the only thing we need to live. Nor does this mean that supporting life is the only application for air.
Shot yourself in the foot again.
They can when the "shall not be infringed" doesn't apply to them. And every single court has said it doesn't.
I'm done. You're obviously not paying attention.
And as I've repeatedly shown, it most certainly does. It wasn't until damn near the 20th century that courts interpreted this differently.
The Founders saw it as an unalienable Right of every Free man. Now morons like you and your beloved liberal courts want to change it.
Guess what? There is a process for doing so. It's called the Amendment process. Anything else violates the Constitution that every State in the Union must abide by. It cannot be any other way and us still consider ourselves a Republic.
That you fight so hard against this makes you not only anti-Constitution, but anti-Union as well. And anti-Rights. And anti-gun. Any other Rights you want to do away with Bobby?
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 was an 1875 case where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the 2nd Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government".
So that's damn near the 19th century.
"The Founders saw it as an unalienable Right of every Free man."
Unalienable? No. An individual right secured by the states, yes.
But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.
Up until it was arbitrarily decided by your precious Courts to ignore the Constitution, we had a Republic. Now, people like you cheerlead for our Democracy and its continuing errosion of our Rights.
Nice going Ace...
And yet he never gives up.
He's either a "true believer" in the New World Order, or he's a Brady Troll.
Too bad really. We could use such a tenacious mind on the Founding Intent/Natural Rights side of the fence.
A scant 11 years after the Cruikshank opinion, SCOTUS affirmed that opinion in holding that the Second Ammendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, and that states without the power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
In the 1886 opoinion, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, the opinion plainly suggests that the Second Ammendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Ammendment and thus that a state can not forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. The statute in front of the court was that Illinois forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law..." The conclusion of the court was that Illinois State statute did not violate the right to keep and bear arms.
In its discussion respecting the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Ammendment, "[i]t is only the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was intended to protect." The court had already held that the substantive right to keep/bear was not infringed by Illinois statute since that statute did not prohibit keeping/bearing, but prohibited military-like excercises by armed men. As such, the court concluded that it did not need to rule on the constitutionality of the State statute.
Subsequently, 8 ears later, Miller v Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), the court ruled in its last opinion rendered to date respecting the matter of the Second Ammendendment applying to the States throught the Fourteenth, confirming that it had never addressed the issue. That notwithstanding, the court found in that case that the Second and Fourth Ammendments, of themselves, did not limit state action. As it pertained specifically to the case before the court, it turned to the issue of warrantless searches with respect to the right to keep/bear as incorporated in the Fourteenth Ammendment. The court would not hear Miller's contentions because they were not filed in a timely manner, so it refused to decide the issue with respect to the Second and Fourth Ammendment applying to the States throught the Fourteenth Ammendment in that its powers of adjudication to the review of errors timely assigned in court trial. The idea that the States were so constrained was left open and to date hasn't been challenged.
It seems remarkable that some shrewed lawyer hasn't argued that before the court in the following 112 years (they argue everything else under the sun, don't they?).
In the U.S. v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) decision, SCOTUS rendered the only opinion ever regarding the application of the Second Ammendment with respect to Federal Firearms statutes. Instead of rashly rendering an opinion concerning the statutes constitutionality, it instead established a prima facie evidence test to measure constitutionality. The Miller case is the watershed case concerning the applicability of any and all firearms in question of keeping/bearing as it pertains to the Militia.
I would be so bold to say, that it could be ruled that any statute that stipulates that any male younger than 18, and older than 45 (65 if being a veteran of the organized) militia) may not keep nor bear any firearm other than a pellet rifle (if under 18), or .22 caliber derringer (or flintlock), if the individual male is older than proscribed ages for inclusion in the organized (or unorganized - on basis of not having requisite experience in such capacity) militia, would be absolutely and utterly constitutional, i.e., the right to keep/bear arms is not being infringed, but regulated. Such regulation can only be derived from State (not federal) action.
I'll concede that there's a whole bevy of lower U.S. District and U.S. appeals court decisions, but SCOTUS has yet to weigh in on the topic other than previously discussed in 230 years.
Alexander Hamilton talks about the quandary that was readily acknowledged respecting the Militia, and the odium that a standing army places upon U.S. citizens, Federalist Paper #29 (addressed to the People of the State of New York). This is most readily discernable in his discourse of the treatise:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."Hamilton then goes on to say the following most poignant comment:
"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia."
If we're so afraid of even the State's regulation of what has historically been their absolute and uncontested domain, then what should be said of federal powers?
If the second amendment stated, "A citizenry well trained in arms, being necessary to the security of a free State ....", then your comparison to a "well educated electorate" would be valid. It doesn't read that way.No it doesn't read that way, the point is: the well-armed citizenry is the Militia.
No. You've already stipulated that books are necessary to the security of a free state. And if the Founding Fathers thought that books alone would secure a free state, then there'd be no use for libraries and no need to mention libraries in an amendment.I did no such thing. I posited an analogy whereby it was equivocated that "a well educated electorate" being one example of something necessary for a free State, etc. bla bla bla.
In my analogy, I suppose its irrelevant, if not immaterial (but not necessarily so), how the electorate become "educated." I don't believe that's the point that is made in the second ammendment (and the analogy fails in that respect).
Some "big-shot" once said: "firearms in the hands of the hoi-polloi are a strong moral check to the powers that be."
And to parry any thrust from anybody who maint declair: "what needs are there for this fair Repbublic to entrust its security to the uneducatd, hoi-polloi rabble?
I posit the concept that perhaps the entire State militia is whiped out in a NBC event while on federal deployment. Who then, constitutionally, protects the interests of that single sovereign and seperate State (within the Union)?
Ho'ah, and en garde!
Do you understand the language of foils?
Yes you did. And the way you phrased it, it could be one example. But my point was that the second amendment wasn't similarly phrased.
The second amendment does NOT read, "a citizenry well trained in arms". Therefore you're not allowed to be so general in your analogy.
The second amendment specifically says, "A well regulated Militia" (with training and the appointment of officers provided by each state). Your analogy need to be just as specific to be analogous. I thought "a well stocked library" was a better fit.
The phrase was put there for a reason. I know we'd all wish to simply skip over it, but it's there and needs to be addressed. If, as you say, the Militia is but one example, where else in the U.S. Constitution do the Founding Fathers do us the favor of an example? (parry)
Why doesn't the first amendment read, "The dissemination of information via newspapers, being necessary to the security of a free State, the freedom of the press shall not be abridged"? (riposte)
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?"
From the Militia Act, it's pretty much everyone. It also stipulates that the unorganized militia, shall never be debarred the use of arms.
Of course, you've been told all this before as well. But still, you refuse to listen. Instead, you come back with more liberal court rulings and Brady logic. Pathetic.
"Pretty much everyone" doesn't sound much like an unalienable right, now does it? Your Militia Act leaves out a few.
From the Militia Act of 1792, the state's Militia consisted of able-bodied white male citizens of the respective States, 18 to 45 years old. They are all to be enrolled in the Militia. When notified to be called up, they have six months to come up with a musket and other goodies.
"It also stipulates that the unorganized militia, shall never be debarred the use of arms."
I read it twice and couldn't find this. Could you point it out?
[RKBA's] "Unalienable? No.
An individual right secured by the states, yes."
-- he never gives up.
He's either a "true believer" in the New World Order, or he's a Brady Troll.
He's a troll, convinced that admittedly "individual rights" can be 'alienated', abridged, deprived, or infringed upon by States.
Too bad really. We could use such a tenacious mind on the Founding Intent/Natural Rights side of the fence.
Catch 22. Such tenaciousness is a product of unreasoning zealotry to 'the cause'. -- And the cause is anti-constitutional statism. -- It's a gulf, not a fence.
I'm more inclined to believe he's part of the beltway regulatory royalty protecting his turf.
Which seems to give folks like you the fits.
Sorry about that, but you'd better learn to deal with it.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; 'thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. - Samuel Adams, 'Rights of the Colonists," Nov. 1772
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. - George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island (1790)
"The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States … Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
"the powers not delegated to congress by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. What we are about to consider are certainly not delegated to congress, nor are they noticed in the prohibitions to states; they are therefore reserved either to the states or to the people. Their high nature, their necessity to the general security and happiness will be distinctly perceived.
"In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest. The corollary, from the first position, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
"In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws." William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 125-26 (2d ed. 1829). Mr. Rawle was appointed as a U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington. Mr. Rawle was also Washington's candidate to be the nation's first Attorney General, but Rawle declined. Chapter 10. Whole Book.
Game. Set. Match.
I'm betting he's spent a good deal of his life on the federal payroll.
Seems to me that if they were looking for enough folks to fill out a good sized Militia, they wouldn't have infringed on the inanlienable RKBA of women, blacks, and seniors.
Further, men over 48 can still join the active militia, but are not subject to a militia call-up. Which again, in no way relates to "infringement" of their RKBA.
The state citizens (plural) acting through their delegates (plural) acting collectively in convention wrote the Constitution establishing a Congress (collective body) of representatives (plural) for the people (plural) of the United States collectively.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
America has collectively survived as a nation for centuries and will live on long after the dead corpses of her forgotten anarchist enemies have rotted away.
It's easier for them to invent "facts" out of thin air.
Twist the meaning all you want. It doesn't make you right, correct, or at this point even remotely sane.
The whole of that Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Take your socialist/collectivist BS elsewhere.
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen Note: singular tense, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Thanks for refuting your own argument You've just admitted that the people of the United States have rights both collectively and individually.
You go, girl!
You're arguing that bearing arms is a privilege?
The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed,
You are such a transparent retard.
Collective bodies have rights just like individuals?
I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by the furious fire you're directing at your own foot, but I'm sure enjoying it!
considered as individuals...
Do you have to be such an outright liar?
It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable
>>>The 2nd amendment is 2nd because it is the 2nd most important right to ensure an enduring democracy...<<<
No. The first 10 amendments were all considered equally important, and were not placed in any particular order. In fact, our current "First Amendment" was originally submitted as the "Third Amendment". The first two amendments failed ratification by the states, so the Third became the First by default.
This is not to say that some of our Founders placed extra value on one amendment or another. Some thought the RKBA the most important; some thought the Freedom of the Press.
considered as individuals...
The actual quote:
"The whole of that Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals..."Poor, poor you.
Some. Keep shooting your foot!
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
Some. Yes. Because the Constitution doesn't GIVE us Rights, it establishes protections for some of them considered most necessary for freedom.
Silly little troll...
Article the first ... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Article the second ... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Although the originally proposed 2nd Amendment was put into effect through Amendment XXVII ratified in 1992.
You're learning! The people have rights individually and collectively that are viewed as inherent, such as state police powers.
Pow! Another foot shot!
it establishes protections for some of them considered most necessary for freedom.
Like the right of our nation's people to govern themselves collectively through their representatives in Congress.
Do you have any toes left?
I wonder what you deliberately left out of that quote? Let's take a look, shall we?
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."Geez, you're so easy.
POW... yet another shot to your foot, as you never get tired of saying.
Also, State police powers have limits. Those limits are the protections for individual Rights in the Fed and State Constitutions. A line which no "police power" was ever to cross, but which you seem to think is just peachy.
This make you a socialist.
I'd love to stay and kick your sorry trollish, flame war staerrting arse all over this forum, but I'm off to the range to exercise my Second Amendment Rights...
Collectively. Bing, pow!
You are hopeless.