Posted on 01/24/2007 7:45:58 AM PST by SmithL
Interesting that you would quote something that is 180 degrees out of kilter and then agree with it.
Anyone who has studied the history of the nation knows that the Constitution was created as a means of vastly INCREASING federal power while removing all significant aspects of full sovereignty from the states.
Madison clearly explains why a Confederation composed of fully sovereign states MUST fail and the history of ours showed how it DID fail resulting in the call for the Convention and a new Constitution.
The tenth amendment changes none of that and merely refers to the rights involving local police powers, health and welfare concerns or concerns affecting ONLY those within a particular state.
Would you consider it accurate then, to say that the Second Amendment cannot be considered a guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms?
Constitution limits FedGov power. Thanks for responding.
You're partially correct, what I did was not say it right.
After the hodge-podge of post-Revolutionary life under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Unity, it was realized that a strong central government was needed because the Federals had no power to tax, raise armies and myriad other things (such as toll gates at state lines). States, being sovereign, could refuse to send miltary units to fight for something they had no interest in, they could refuse to fund the fedgov, etc. This situation led to chaos and the Founders did something about it.
Just because you don't like it, you old contrarian, doesn't mean they did the wrong thing.
As for the BOR, I know it only applied to the Feds, never said different.
Sorry but I don't read the article as showing that he has said that it doesn't matter or can be overriden at a whim.
This is a lame attempt to interfere with the detention of terrorists by publishing claims about Gonzales statements which do not appear to be facts.
actually it is very clear.
I think the context is the GItmo detainees.
War combatants and terrorists have no habeas corpus rights.
This is not news, this is just a san francisco hippie smoking too much pot when writing for a dinosaur media paper.
sigh, read the constitution.
He is right. The san francisco paper is distorting.
Gitmo detainess and the like have no such right.
Prisoners of war are governed by other rules.
There are a lot of cornerstones of modern America that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Most of what we do and see is there by tacit understanding, codified in the law, of course.
The Second amendment uses the need for a militia to justify the RKBA. That is often used as a claim it is not an individual right but the militia was composed of all able-bodied men. Some states even wrote such a definition in their constitutions. Illinois was one and it proceeds merrily on its way grabbing guns right and left.
And the Second does not guarantee everyone a right to bear every form of arms. As a right of the "People" the key is defining who the "People" are. At the time of ratification at least 20% of the inhabitants of the US were NOT considered part of the "People" and were not allowed arms. Southern states restricted and prohibited that minority from owning guns as a matter of routine.
It vastly INCREASED the power of the General Government which had become impotent by 1787. That is not the same as saying it gave it unlimited power but it is entirely specious and dishonest to claim in any way that it diminished federal power wrt the states.
Just because you don't like it, you old contrarian, doesn't mean they did the wrong thing. [Huh? I am a High Federalist with Washington, Hamilton and the pre 1790 Madison as my heroes. The Constitution is the greatest political document ever created by man.]
That's true, but taken in the same regard as Gonzales' statment, there is no explicit guarantee of that right, only restrictions on infringement.
The camp is outside the state.
-Agamben
I know. The "contrarian" remark was just to get ya going.
Things that were said that day that aren't in the article:
Gonzales:
" I think the fact that in 1789, the Judiciary Act, that they passed statutory habeas for the first time, may reflect -- maybe -- I don't want to say a concern, but why pass a statutory right so soon after the Constitution? Perhaps, because it wasn't express grant of habeas."
He also mentioned that habeas was not extended to WWII German and Japanese POWs. This was upheld by the courts in the 50s.
Do I like it? No. Do I think he has a point? Yes. Did this so you could come to your own conclusion? No.
I take that as a complement.
Yep.
I have. I can't say the same about Alberto.
The above is an all too common misconception. -- Article VI makes it clear that our supreme Law of the Land cannot be infringed, "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Then, of course, State governments insisted that they are "-- free to violate them [individual rights] at will if not prohibited within their constitutions --"; a major contributing factor to the civil war.
After the war the 14th was ratified to reiterate that fed, state or local governments could not deprive us of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Once again, -- government officials at every level attempted to ignore the clear basic principle that individual rights cannot be infringed.
Finally, after nearly two hundred years of this 'majority rule' type madness, -some- individual rights are being acknowledged as uninfringeable.
Our RKBA's is the notable exception.
Why do you suppose that is the case JSUATI?
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.