Posted on 07/01/2009 10:44:06 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
They said precisely what they intended, which is why the amendments that would have bound the states were voted down in Congress. I mean, this debate was had in Congress, and the effort to extend amendments to the states was defeated.
A limited Government is a limited Government. Putting further limits on ALL government in the form of a BoR in no way increases Federal power.
Fifthly.
That in article 2st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Now compare with the language of the first and sixth - which do not include the "No state" language. Why, if the Bill of Rights was intended to limit state Constitutions?
Why have a 10th Amendment? Or a 9th for that matter...
Answer the question.
Of course it does. With the ascendant federal power comes the power to enforce the prohibition.
::sigh:: Seriously?
Fine. Look, Madison does the work for us. And for your reference, all of this can be found in 1 Annals of Congress 451.
In proposing the amendments, Madison proposed that they be integrated into the document itself, not set apart as we have them now. In his initial proposal, he grouped what we know now as the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments belong in Article I, section 9, along with the other explicit limitations on Congressional power. Note where these are grouped. (The Seventh Amendment was proposed to be amended as part of Art. III. The Tenth Amendment was to be a separate article.)
Additionally, Madison proposed an entirely separate amendment, to be listed in Art. I, s. 10, limitations on State powers. He proposed an amendment to read: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” This amendment was ultimately rejected.
Madison was quite clear on where things belonged.
He didn't say what you are attributing to him. Taking things out of context isn't going to advance your point.
Are you sure you know which side you are on?
Mason et al DID. Rightfully so. As it was, it was only a stop gap measure slowly eaten away by the various Legislatures and with the complicity of a lax Judiciary.
So now, we have Federal Gun Laws, Hate crime laws, State level Bans on any number of things that would have otherwise been off limits, etc...
Imagine how much worse if there wasn't even the pitiful excuse of a BoR to point to in an effort to slow or reverse this course.
!0th was a further compromise from the 9th, to the extent it struck out the "expressly" language, thus not amending the necessary & proper clause.
As I pointed out before, Madison's floor statements were clear. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments were to be placed in Art. I, s. 9, the limitations on Congressional power. These amendments were ultimately ratified.
A separate amendment was proposed to amend Art. I, s. 10, limitations on state powers, including separate guarantees against state infringement of religion, press, and jury trial. This amendment was defeated in the Senate.
It is notable that Madison even introduced this amendment, as it seems odd if the First and Fifth amendments protected against state infringement.
I am not attributing anything to Madison. I am asking you to look at the process where the Amendments were ratified because the whole process needs to be examined to arrive Congressional intent.
I am on the side of interpreting the Constitution by looking at original intent. You can't apply a cookie cutter to the analysis - like Marshall did in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore - or like you have done in arguing that all of the Bill of Rights apply to State action. You have to look at the words of each amendment and the circumstances surrounding its enactment.
As far as the Second, and your irrational fear, you need look no further than Scalia's analysis in District of Columbia v. Heller 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2790 (U.S.,2008):
The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the second amendment] is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
So do not fret Mr. Dead Corpse. I know which side I am on!
Informative posts. Thank you.
The biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made was calling it the “Bill of Rights”, instead of the “Bill of Limitations”.
Despite dozens of Founders being on record as supporting those same inalienable Rights?
Check your premises, they are leaking...
"The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Not "Congress may not", not "the States may not", just point blank "shall not be infringed".
Who has this Right? The people. Which people? State citizens? Or all US Citizens?
As I said, history and grammar are not on your side.
You'd think the Author of the BoR would know what he was talking about.
Neither of which explain their inclusion under your logical supposition. Nor does the explicit wording of Art 6 Para 2. If the Constitution was never meant to modify what powers the States retained, the “Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” would have been tantamount to treason in their eyes.
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.