Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
Is the Constitution natural law?
So if they basically say “reconsider in light of heller”, is that like saying,,”or else eventually you’re going to be overturned”?
I think I did, and that it is you who "cannot refute, or even address." But, of course, anyone who thinks about something and commits it to writing does so thinking he hat Recht. So I look to others who are interested to comment upon what I wrote.
ML/NJ
The Supreme Court rejected that facile argument centuries ago.
"Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language."
What does this prove? The Fifth Amendment, for instance, states that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
In my state, however, the prosecutor can file an information instead of seeking an indictment from a grand jury.
Likewise, the Eighth Amendment is pretty unequivocal, but there is no constitutional guarantee against excessive bail against the states. Why do you think that is?
The right to keep and bear arms preexisted the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd is not the source of that right.
Must have been silently.
Never been challenged?
That would be my first response.
The intent of the Bill of Rights was not quite that statist. Yes, it reserved powers and rights to the states respectively, but also to the people. The second amendment specifically declares the right to keep and bear arms is a right OF THE PEOPLE, that shall not be infringed. The 9th amendment states that the enumeration of certain rights does not deny or disparage other rights that are retained by the people. You seem to be making the statist argument that even though the right of the people is specifically enumerated, since the broad language of "shall not be infringed" failed to specify "neither congress nor the states shall infringe the right of the people" the states somehow retained the power to restrict an enumerated right. And at the same time, you keep mentioning original intent?
yes, except you argue that a state can invalidate it with a new law. Because while you argue a fairly unusual point of view, a court today ruled Chicago can take away the right to own a gun. NRA wants THAT decision overturned, what is your solution? You don’t want it appealed, so you want it to stand in Chicago?
I think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is prett darn plain and intelligible.
The United States Constitution did not create the states. The United States Constitution was not the source of state powers.
The United States Constitution delegated certain limited powers to the federal government. Any rights reserved were reserved from those delegated powers.
Statists, such as yourself, prefer centralized government and legislation from the federal bench.
And Illinois’ Constitution did that by re-stating the 2nd Amendment almost verbatim.
But, then there is the “home rule” clause for cities.
And I think that it's pretty darn plain that the United States Constitution wasn't a replacement constitution for each of the fifty states.
Not if their state constitution says otherwise.
He did NOT argue that the states were free to prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. You are inferring that. Likewise as to his desire about the condition of local law in Chicago.
The legal solution (which will not be forthcoming) is to properly read and apply the Presser case. There is a reason states may not prohibit keep and bear arms, but that reason is NOT the 2nd amendment. The RKBA does not flow to the people via the 2nd amendment, to be enforced or not at the pleasure of the feds. See scores of 2nd amendment cases (where the Circuits positively BLEW IT), cert. denied. SCOTUS is anti-RKBA.
The realpolitic solution hasn't been developed yet. I hope SCOTUS denies cert in the Nordyke/Maloney/Chicago cases, to further show their current hostility to the RKBA. That might cause some people to snap out of their stupor. If it doesn't, well, that's that.
The useful idiots would wash those protections away in favor of micromanaging from the federal bench.
“The NRA is calling for judicial legislation. Shameful.”
How so? Sounds to me like the NRA is calling for the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution.
Since when is NOT judicially reversing the constitution “judicial legislation.”
The “living document” BS is just that — BS. The constitution either means what it says or it means nothing.
Not even then, according to the Presser case.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as 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. But, as already stated, we think it clear that [a state law that requires a parade permit] do[es] not have this effect.
Much better stated than I was able to do. Well said.
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.