Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem
Then how do you reconcile other clauses in the Constitution, such as the "full faith and credit clause", Article IV Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Or Section 2 Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
You can't have states with different views of Constitutional rights and still have them recognize opposing rights from other states.
Until the passage of the 14th amendment, the individual states could do anything they wanted in regard to individual liberties.
or the clarifications in Amendment XIV Section 1:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
The 14th amendment clarified what already existed in the Constitution. I disagree that prior to the 14th the states could do whatever they wanted. They may still have, and it may have taken the 14th to explicitly make them stop, but the language was already there to prevent it, just as the language was there to prevent much of what is ignored today in the Constitution.
-PJ
Would you care to elaborate?
Would you care to explain that?
If your reasoning were to apply to the First Amendment, then free speech would not apply to TV, Radio, or the Internet. One you put ANY restrictions you are opening the possibility that the Government will use it to restrict everything. Tactical nuclear weapons would be restricted through there cost and the technology needed to maintain them, the 155mm Howitzers would be fun, but you will be financially responsible if it knocks down a house. Can you imagine the cost of insurance if you obtained a working Howitzer?
It's up to each library ... man.
You make a statement like that and then have the cojones to tell me I don't understand the constitution?
Correct. The overwhelming majority of the lower courts, and lower court opinions, support the "collective rights" theory. I am afraid that if it goes to the U.S. Suprreme Court at this time they will go with the majority.
"None of your comments are supported by any reading of the plain language of the amendment."
The "plain language of the amendment". I like that.
"Read the decision and answer the arguments. Try it."
Look up "cognitive dissonance". Try it.
You essentially say, "if people read, they will be educated, and that's good". Try again.
I intentionally said "natural" rights to distinguish them from "inalienable" rights. Yet you just squish them together. There is a difference.
"Regulated" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern concept of regulations put in place by the federal government."
I never said it did.
cost of insurance? a howitzer is like a ferrari. if you can afford to own it, you'll probably never think twice about how much insurance is.
IMO, if it is an "armament" then citizens have the right to own.
Obviously the guy in the trailer next to you won't be owning or maintaining a nuke there, but if say, Perot or Gates wanted to have large weapon systems that ordinary citizens couldn't afford, so what?
Yeah you're always gonna have some idiot who can't even handle a ball bat responsibly and those should be treated as exceptions not the basis for making rules for all.
Correct. If the jury was presented with evidence supporting the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, then the tax stamp would have been unconstitutional (implied by statements from the USSC). Meaning the law under which Mr. Miller was charged was unconstitutional. Meaning Mr. Miller would go free.
You'll note. Nothing in that process describes an individual right.
Speech is guaranteed, correct? Are you saying that speech cannot be regulated? C'mon. THINK!
"I believe that individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution takes precedent over any and all community concerns."
Don't forget the 9th amendment which guarantess ALL rights, not just those listed in amendments 1-8.
So, you're saying you should be allowed to do anything you want and we, as society, must protect your right to do anything you want. Now THAT'S the selfish attitude we're lookin' for!
A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
In this sentence, who has the right to keep and read books? Please answwer that question.
(And your example offers no formal, organized and well regulated way that the citizenry will go about obtaining and reading books.
You essentially say, "if people read, they will be educated, and that's good". Try again.
) None of what you wrote addresses the question I posed. Nice try.
Please restrict your reply to that. Silveira, for example, concerned a state law, not a federal law.
No, it's not a good point.
The right in question exists outside the Constitution, not because of it. The states are inherently obliged to respect it. The 14th Amendment was applied to clarify this.
His arguments have been shredded hundreds of times.
No it's not.
There are now two lower federal court rulings stating an individual right. There may be more forthcoming. More and more states are passing concealed carry. More and more states are passing "stand your ground" laws and the right to protect your property.
What's the hurry? Sarah.
'tis true that historically the concealed carry of arms was (generally speaking, yes there were exceptions) considered an act indicating ill intent.
That was then, this is now.
Today open carry is flatly prohibited in many jurisdictions, with concealed carry the only legal means. As such, concealed carry should be accepted as a right in light of cultural norms.
The Constitution was never intended to "grant" rights. It defines the powers of the Federal Government.
And I told you it was not the same structure and I told you why. Therefore, I will not answer it.
Re-phrase it to comply with the same structure and you won't need to ask my opinion -- it will be obvious. Which, I'm sure, is why you refuse to do so.
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.