Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
the people

Posted on 01/01/2004 3:49:02 AM PST by sopwith

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: bor; constitution; originaldocuments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

1 posted on 01/01/2004 3:49:02 AM PST by sopwith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sopwith
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

WAKE UP, AMURRICA!

What part of this guarantee of freedom of religion and speech is NOT under attack and being ignored by courts across the land? And what is not being attacked or ignored, is parsed to impossible limits. Burning of the Flag, despicable an act though it may be, or flipping someone off, is protected as "free speech", yet the Feingold/McCain campaign finance reform is in direct contradiction to the spirit and letter of this Amendment, and not found to be unconstitutional. This issue must be revisited again.

2 posted on 01/01/2004 4:24:46 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sopwith
Dude, you're gonna get arrested for inciting a riot or something. Now be a nice citizen and forget all these grand ideas of 'liberty' and stuff.
3 posted on 01/01/2004 4:26:28 AM PST by ovrtaxt (The income tax is the monetary equivalent of gun control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
I think we could forget all this money for running for office if we did one thing. Open OUR air waves on radio and TV to the public free of charge 1 hour a day during elections , in prime time, for the people who run. When we give money we may as well just sent it to the TV companies.This is fair if we really are the people who run this country.
4 posted on 01/01/2004 4:37:53 AM PST by sawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sawyer
bump
5 posted on 01/01/2004 4:43:48 AM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sopwith
Sure, that document looks great, but it'll never hold up in court.
6 posted on 01/01/2004 4:46:22 AM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
it'll never hold up in court. It's obviously unconstitutional . . .
7 posted on 01/01/2004 5:00:33 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sopwith
Thanks for posting these quaint historical documents. At one time in America, they were the supreme law of the land.

Feel free to add to this list.

8 posted on 01/01/2004 5:01:15 AM PST by snopercod (Wishing y'all a prosperous, happy, and FREE new year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sawyer
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3ba20deb5ac5.htm
9 posted on 01/01/2004 5:02:02 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Ya' know what makes me sick...

What's that guy's name?

10 posted on 01/01/2004 5:03:26 AM PST by snopercod (Wishing y'all a prosperous, happy, and FREE new year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Earl Pitts?
11 posted on 01/01/2004 5:10:23 AM PST by luigi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
post 8.
Thats worthy for an op. ed.
12 posted on 01/01/2004 5:12:43 AM PST by sopwith (don't tread on me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Absolutely brilliant summary.

And the sad sad sad thing is some "conservatives" don't even know enough history to know that most of the damage was done in during and post the New Deal.

Rolling back the New Deal used to be the definition of "Republican." Now, even highly educated conservatives like Laura Ingram parrot the government line on atrocities like the Patriot Act.
13 posted on 01/01/2004 5:23:44 AM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sopwith
great post
14 posted on 01/01/2004 5:24:17 AM PST by orlop9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luigi
That's HIM! Thank you. http://www.earlpitts.com/
15 posted on 01/01/2004 5:34:39 AM PST by snopercod (Wishing y'all a prosperous, happy, and FREE new year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: orlop9
There are eleven, not ten, amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 27th being part of the original twelve passed by Congress as the proposed Bill of Rights.
16 posted on 01/01/2004 5:34:52 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sopwith
There are eleven, not ten, amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 27th being part of the original twelve passed by Congress as the proposed Bill of Rights.
17 posted on 01/01/2004 5:35:22 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
Old, outdated and not relevant to the dynamic changes of the modern world. I'll shut up know for fear of Rat note takers.
18 posted on 01/01/2004 6:41:49 AM PST by endthematrix (To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment X - "States Rights" have been null and void since the civil war and the passage of Amendment XIV in 1866.

  Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

________________________________________

There is nothing in the 14th that nullifies/voids the 10th. -- It merely makes clear that states cannot violate our individual rights as outlined in the rest of the constitution.

States have never had the delegated power to infringe upon our enumerated/ unenumerated rights, -- as is made clear by the preamble to the BOR's, -- which states that "when ratified", - it is, - " to be valid for all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution".
Article VI states that our Constitution: "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therby; --"

Your ideas about "states rights" are being used by states like CA to violate our 2nd amendment, by prohibiting so-called 'assault weapons'.

19 posted on 01/01/2004 6:43:17 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Amendment X was also assaulted by Carter's creation of the Dep't of Education.
20 posted on 01/01/2004 6:58:17 AM PST by Marauder (If God lived on earth, liberals would sue Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
THANK YOU! I'm cheered up and ready to hit the hay from a long night shift! Wake up America! Rednecks....LOL!
21 posted on 01/01/2004 6:58:20 AM PST by endthematrix (To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The Article 6 supremacy clause does bind the judges of every state to the U.S. Constitution. However, before Amendment 14, Amendments 1 through 8 were meant to restrict powers of the federal government, not the states.

You will hear the Supremacy Clause / Bill of Rights argument over and over, but mere repetition, even from valued sources, does not make it the correct reading. I recommend that everyone interested in genuine understanding of the U.S. Constitution do the work, read the history, and judge this question for themselves.

Here's an alternate interpretation. Inalienable rights should never be abridged by any government, county, state, or federal. Any governing entity which we can hold worthy should limit itself. Any Constitution should reiterate that inalienable rights will not be abridged. Secondly, denying the people a right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) clearly leaves a way open for governmental oppression. Therefore we cannot approve of any constitution which does not clearly establish it.

California's constitution being such a one is a gross violation and deserves our condemnation.

Now, as to whether Amendments 1-8 of the U.S. Constitution apply through the states. SCOTUS has taken a cafeteria style approach, treating enumerated rights individually, as to whether or not Amendment 14 incorporates the given right. Some say complete incorporation would be much more logical. This would mean that the Supreme Court precedents establish exactly the same protections against state encroachment as they do national encroachment, except where a state establishes even greater protection.

My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial. I would prefer the country to be finally responsible for protecting its inhabitants from encroachments of national power, and states be responsible to protect their own inhabitants from encroachments of state power. When they fail to, the people must hold them directly accountable, not in every case run to federal "daddy" (except in specific situations described in Amendment 14).

22 posted on 01/01/2004 7:23:02 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of rights interpretation. The people are via the jury system. It is the right and obligation of every juror on every trial in the nation to judge the law for compliance to the constitution at the same time as they judge the facts.

This concept of jury nullification was basic to the design of our national government by the founders.

23 posted on 01/01/2004 7:33:21 AM PST by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mike4Freedom
Excuse me, haven't you heard of the judge over riding the jury as has been happening lately? Even conducting a trial by jury is coming under attack.
24 posted on 01/01/2004 7:39:28 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Amendment III - The only one which hasn't been violated (yet). I haven't heard of any soldiers being quartered in private homes.

Why should they need to quarter soldiers in your house, when it's more convenient to tax the cr*p out of your house and use the money to buy $10,000 H&K MP5s? One of the big points of "quartering" was to let you know that your property was really the government's property.

I submit that if you don't pay your "property taxes" on your house, you'll find out in a hurry whose house it REALLY is. ;=-)

25 posted on 01/01/2004 8:02:46 AM PST by an amused spectator (Merry FR Christmas, and a Happy New Year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Amendment III - The only one which hasn't been violated (yet). I haven't heard of any soldiers being quartered in private homes.

It is violated by extending the senses of those soldiers via technological means. See: Surveillance
26 posted on 01/01/2004 8:08:02 AM PST by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sopwith
The Bill of Rights: May it rest in peace. The third amendment is the only one that seems to still be working.
27 posted on 01/01/2004 8:16:26 AM PST by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
I don't really see amendment 14 having any real effect on Bill of Rights, other than 14 kept states from creating laws that would keep individuals from being considered citizens (i.e., black folks). When the constitution confers a right to an "individual", then a state cannot arbitrarily trample that right - such as in the 2nd amendment.
28 posted on 01/01/2004 8:21:06 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
When the constitution confers a right to an "individual", then a state cannot arbitrarily trample that right - such as in the 2nd amendment.

OK, you disagreed with my reading, which is based on Justice Rehnquist's reading, among others. But you did not give any reason why your reading must be the correct one.

The constitution's 2nd amendment, for example, does not confer a right to individuals. It limits the federal government from abridging RKBA. There is a subtle difference. The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA. The state's constitution is responsible for establishing that protection.

29 posted on 01/01/2004 8:29:33 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
There is nothing in the 14th that nullifies/voids the 10th. -- It merely makes clear that states cannot violate our individual rights as outlined in the rest of the constitution.
States have never had the delegated power to infringe upon our enumerated/ unenumerated rights, -- as is made clear by the preamble to the BOR's, -- which states that "when ratified", - it is, - " to be valid for all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution".

Article VI states that our Constitution: "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therby; --"

Your ideas about "states rights" are being used by states like CA to violate our 2nd amendment, by prohibiting so-called 'assault weapons'.

The Article 6 supremacy clause does bind the judges of every state to the U.S. Constitution.
However, before Amendment 14, Amendments 1 through 8 were meant to restrict powers of the federal government, not the states.

You are ignoring the preambles words. The BOR's were meant to restrict the powers of all of our governments, local, state, territorial & federal..

You will hear the Supremacy Clause / Bill of Rights argument over and over, but mere repetition, even from valued sources, does not make it the correct reading.

Just as your repetition does not make your position the correct reading. -- The words of the documents speak for themselves.

I recommend that everyone interested in genuine understanding of the U.S. Constitution do the work, read the history, and judge this question for themselves. Here's an alternate interpretation. Inalienable rights should never be abridged by any government, county, state, or federal. Any governing entity which we can hold worthy should limit itself. Any Constitution should reiterate that inalienable rights will not be abridged. Secondly, denying the people a right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) clearly leaves a way open for governmental oppression. Therefore we cannot approve of any constitution which does not clearly establish it. California's constitution being such a one is a gross violation and deserves our condemnation.

Our existing constitution condemns CA's violation. We need to see that it is enforced.

Now, as to whether Amendments 1-8 of the U.S. Constitution apply through the states. SCOTUS has taken a cafeteria style approach, treating enumerated rights individually, as to whether or not Amendment 14 incorporates the given right. Some say complete incorporation would be much more logical. This would mean that the Supreme Court precedents establish exactly the same protections against state encroachment as they do national encroachment, except where a state establishes even greater protection.

Some say that 'incorporation' is a legality, a sham that is un-needed. -- States have never had the power to violate our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. -- It is ludicrous to argue otherwise.

My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial. I would prefer the country to be finally responsible for protecting its inhabitants from encroachments of national power, and states be responsible to protect their own inhabitants from encroachments of state power. When they fail to, the people must hold them directly accountable, not in every case run to federal "daddy" (except in specific situations described in Amendment 14).

Why is it necessary, -in your mind-, to trust state/local government to honor our individual rights?
We have a constitutional system of checks & balances in place, -- that only needs to be enforced, as written, to accomplish that end.

30 posted on 01/01/2004 8:34:10 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
The constitution's 2nd amendment, for example, does not confer a right to individuals.

True enough, Our RKBA's is an inate, self-evident, and inalienable individual right. -- It is not "confered"..

It limits the federal government from abridging RKBA. There is a subtle difference.

It limits ~any~ level of government in the USA from infringments.

The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA. The state's constitution is responsible for establishing that protection.

You did not give any reason why your reading must be the correct one.
Why on earth do you WANT a state to have the power to infringe upon one of your inalienable rights?
Your position makes no sense.

31 posted on 01/01/2004 8:53:10 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Article VI states that our Constitution: "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therby; --"

I've already given a very logical and widely agreed upon disposition of what Article 6 means in this context. No need for me to repeat it.

Your ideas about "states rights" are being used by states like CA to violate our 2nd amendment, by prohibiting so-called 'assault weapons'.

They are not my ideas but the framers' ideas. I did not use the phrase "state's rights." CA cannot violate the 2nd amendment if it only restricts the federal government.

Our existing constitution condemns CA's violation.

I agree. In essence, it condemns it.

States have never had the power to violate our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

I agree. But that is not due to the Supremacy Clause OR the BOR, which each have their specific meanings.

Why is it necessary, -in your mind-, to trust state/local government to honor our individual rights?

It is not a matter of trust, but of responsibility. We cannot trust the states or the federal government: they serve at our pleasure.

32 posted on 01/01/2004 8:57:55 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Excuse me, haven't you heard of the judge over riding the jury as has been happening lately? Even conducting a trial by jury is coming under attack.

I have no problem with a judge over riding a verdict for the benefit of the defendant. It is the reverse that is horrible.

Right now, they habitually lie to jurors telling them that they MUST take the law as the judge explains it to them. They also block exculpatory evidence, if it may help to convince the jury to nullify (example-forbid the defendant to mention his medical need for Marijuana as they put him in jail as a drug user/pusher.

33 posted on 01/01/2004 9:04:09 AM PST by Mike4Freedom (Freedom is the one thing that you cannot have unless you grant it to everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Why on earth do you WANT a state to have the power to infringe upon one of your inalienable rights?

I do not want any state to have the power to infringe on rights, quite the contrary. However, there is no certain way of guaranteeing it. The Constitution does not create any federal apparatus for reaching down into the states and adjudicating whether or not the state has fulfilled its responsibility of protecting individual rights.

34 posted on 01/01/2004 9:21:57 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
NO - if it meant to limit the federal govt's powers, they would have used wording along the lines of "Congress shall make no law" rather than "the right of the individual". If you look at the DOI, individual rights are derived from God and are "inalienable". By recognizing the RKBA as and individual right, the USC prohibits states from passing laws that would infringe on those rights.
35 posted on 01/01/2004 9:24:47 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA.

You did not give any reason why your reading must be the correct one.
Why on earth do you WANT a state to have the power to infringe upon one of your inalienable rights?
Your position makes no sense.

I do not want any state to have the power to infringe on rights, quite the contrary.

Belied by your own words, just above. You claim:
"The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA." -- You can't have it both ways.. States do not have such powers. You claim they do..

However, there is no certain way of guaranteeing it. The Constitution does not create any federal apparatus for reaching down into the states and adjudicating whether or not the state has fulfilled its responsibility of protecting individual rights.

Wrong.. We have a supreme court to ajudicate such issues..
And if they continue to allow CA to violate our RKBA's, changes ~will~ be made..

36 posted on 01/01/2004 9:42:02 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We agree individuals have inalienable rights. Certainly life, liberty, and property. We agree the Constitution is Supreme over the land. We have no disagreement over whether states or the federal government should trample RKBA. Moreover, I think we agree the founders with us would strongly disapprove of any such trampling.

Where do we disagree? In the manner in which powers are conferred, and the manner in which the protection of liberties is codified.

I agree to explain how I maintain these two assertions. You have said that I cannot have it both ways. The two assertions are:

1. I do not want any state to have the power to infringe on rights, quite the contrary.
2. The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA.

If the state of CA confiscates your firearm, I am dead-set against that. It should not have given itself the power to do that. The citizens of CA and of other states should not stand for it. Thank goodness most other states have had wiser founders. And thank goodness the federal government limits itself from such a travesty. And it codified the 2nd Amendment to make dead sure of it.

37 posted on 01/01/2004 10:06:29 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
I agree to explain how I maintain these two assertions.
You have said that I cannot have it both ways. The two assertions are:

1. I do not want any state to have the power to infringe on rights, quite the contrary.
2. The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA.

If the state of CA confiscates your firearm, I am dead-set against that.

*It should not have given itself the power to do that.*


The citizens of CA and of other states should not stand for it. Thank goodness most other states have had wiser founders. And thank goodness the federal government limits itself from such a travesty. And it codified the 2nd Amendment to make dead sure of it.
-NutCboy-





You claim:
"The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA." -- You can't have it both ways.. States do not have such powers. You claim they do..

Nothing you've written above explains how you "maintain these two assertions".

You maintain an illogical position by insisting that a state has a power to 'trample' one of our inalienable rights.

Where did the state get the power to *"give itself the power to do that"?*

The CA constitution simply fails to mention our RKBA's, -- as do some of the other states.
There is no power to ban property in the CA constitution.
'We the people of CA' did not grant the legislature this power.

We petition our supreme court to right this wrong, and you support the states 'right' to ban guns.

Why is that?

38 posted on 01/01/2004 11:03:04 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
If the state of CA confiscates your firearm, I am dead-set against that. -NutCrackerBoy

How much more can I underscore this? I think it is wrong. I want it changed. Among other things, the wrongful CA Constitution is clearly having the effect of inducing people such as yourself to grant even more influence to the Supreme Court, which already has way too much.

Where did the state get the power to give itself the power to [confiscate firearms]?

It is not legitimate. The federal government did not give it that power. It arrogated the power unto itself.

39 posted on 01/01/2004 11:17:00 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
"if it meant to limit the federal govt's powers, they would have used wording "
Even a seemingly reasonable interpretation of the words of the Constitution, like yours or that of those who wish to expand the general welfare clause, run counter to the intent and understanding of it's authors and ratifiers at the time of it's adoption.

The Bill of Rights was demanded only as a limit on the Federal government:
"If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control.
And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government!
You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power!
You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?
What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. " Patrick Henry 1788

And that is what it was, a limit only on the federal government:

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them. " Supreme Court 1833 Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
(there is a link to a Libertarian 'Living Constitution' commentary at the bottom of the page which you might enjoy).

40 posted on 01/01/2004 11:36:54 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
the state [does not have ] the power to give itself the power to [confiscate firearms]
It is not legitimate. It arrogated the power unto itself.





Yet you claim:
"2. The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA."


Can you agree that 'we the people' can ratify a constitution that says:

'The 2nd amendment limits state governments from trampling on our RKBA?'

I submit we did so, back in 1791.

You must admit that in the territory of CA, before statehood, US citizens had a RKBA's, -- yet you insist, because of a oversight, modern CA can now ban arms..
This is an illogical position.


41 posted on 01/01/2004 11:44:01 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
In some cases, the USC limits the federal govt, in others it empowers the individual. If we are to take your interpretation, the DOI was overwritten by the USC. Why do you suppose the first 10 amendments are referred to as "The Bill of Rights"? Were they speaking of state's rights or individual rights? Let's take the 4th and 5th amendments, for instance. The 4th mentions neither the state or federal govt. It does mention the "people". What good would this amendment be since, at the time of the constitution, 99.9% of criminal cases would have been tried in state courts? The same can be said of the 5th. In your interpretation, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" would mean that a state court could compel someone to give testimony against themselves. The constitution is clear and in keeping with the DOI. Rights belong to individuals, are God-given, and "inalienable".
42 posted on 01/01/2004 11:52:38 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith; yall

Commentary by Jon Roland:

" --- we can see Barron as a decision like that of Dred Scott, intended to avoid a rupture among the states.

At the time the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights were being violated by state courts in the slave states, which is what laid the basis for the 14th Amendment following the Civil War.
We can see Barron as an attempt to evade a confrontation.

Barron was wrongly decided, and needs to be overturned.

Federal courts should not accept jurisdiction of state civil rights cases unless or until all recourse within the state courts has been exhausted, but it should accept jurisdiction over appropriate cases involving any of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights after that has occurred, and extend all of those protections to cases between a citizen and his state.

Especially important are the protections of the Second Amendment, the right to a grand jury of the Fifth, and the right not to have state officials or their agents exercise undelegated powers.



Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Address:http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243jr.htm Changed:5:44 AM on Wednesday, December 31, 2003
43 posted on 01/01/2004 12:06:45 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
It's not my interpretation.
It is the interpretation of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'm sorry they mean nothing to you, but your's is obviously not an unusual attitude these days!

44 posted on 01/01/2004 12:10:45 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
What good would this amendment be since, at the time of the constitution, 99.9% of criminal cases would have been tried in state courts?

State constitutions already had protections such as those. The purpose of the Bill of Rights in the federal Constitution was to keep federal powers in line (as state constitutions kept state powers in line). The preamble to the Bill of Rights explains this.

45 posted on 01/01/2004 12:41:38 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
"It's not my interpretation."
-mrsmith-







Well it is sure -NOT- the interpretation of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, -- that our individual rights could be violated by governments of any sort..

It is incredible how you 'states righters' will try to rationalize giving a state the power to control life, liberty, & property..
Why do you abandon your own freedoms?



46 posted on 01/01/2004 12:47:05 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: inquest
inquest wrote:
State constitutions already had protections such as those.





States have always violated our constitution. See #43 & read the link:

Commentary by Jon Roland:

" --- we can see Barron as a decision like that of Dred Scott, intended to avoid a rupture among the states.
At the time the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights were being violated by state courts in the slave states, which is what laid the basis for the 14th Amendment following the Civil War.
We can see Barron as an attempt to evade a confrontation.
Barron was wrongly decided, and needs to be overturned.

47 posted on 01/01/2004 12:55:28 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
From the link:

The argument made by Justice Marshall in his dictum in Barron is that the Constitution established only the federal government, and therefore any recognition of rights it might provide were only against that government. This argument implicitly denies that the rights are fundamental and pre-existing....

Marshall's argument doesn't deny any such thing. It simply makes the observation that the Constitution divides responsibility for protecting rights between the state and federal governments, and as part of that division of duties, does not give the federal government the power to enforce rights against state governments. That's far from saying that rights aren't fundamental.

48 posted on 01/01/2004 1:08:18 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Madison on the Bill of Rights prior to it's adoption:

But whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. ...But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority. ...It may be said, because it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict. I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

Seems to me he is more worried about the state government and the community at large and his reason is that the feds had few enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.

49 posted on 01/01/2004 1:18:14 PM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: inquest
States have always violated our constitution. See #43 & read the link:
Commentary by Jon Roland:

" --- we can see Barron as a decision like that of Dred Scott, intended to avoid a rupture among the states.
At the time the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights were being violated by state courts in the slave states, which is what laid the basis for the 14th Amendment following the Civil War.
We can see Barron as an attempt to evade a confrontation.
Barron was wrongly decided, and needs to be overturned.
47 tpaine




From the link:
"The argument made by Justice Marshall in his dictum in Barron is that the Constitution established only the federal government, and therefore any recognition of rights it might provide were only against that government. This argument implicitly denies that the rights are fundamental and pre-existing...."


Marshall's argument doesn't deny any such thing. It simply makes the observation that the Constitution divides responsibility for protecting rights between the state and federal governments, and as part of that division of duties, does not give the federal government the power to enforce rights against state governments. That's far from saying that rights aren't fundamental.
48 -inquest-





And your point is? - Do you agree we have fundamental rights that cannot be violated by any level of government?

50 posted on 01/01/2004 1:24:40 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out me devils. Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson