The U.S. Constitution [Misinterpreted] Online

This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.
Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

It is incredible, seeing the author completely ignores the supremacy clause in Art. VI.

"Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill - this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation.
Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully.

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution.
After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."

South Carolina has outlawed prostitution.

Did the people of South Carolina vote for a State Constitution Amendment to give their State the power to regulate consentual sexual liaison contracts (ie; prostitution)?

If they did, then yes. They can outlaw it. If not, then not. Not and still lay a claim to being part of a Constitutional Republic. Put some other name on it. Dictatorship. Oligarchy. Communism. Socialism. Fascism.

Just not a Republic. Don't defame the name.

I don't think they put anything in their Constitution about prostitution.

You can think whatever you like about SC, but unless you're a resident of that state you have no power over them. If you're a citizen of a foreign state, you can't even sue SC in Federal court (11th Amendment), to try to reverse their decision to outlaw prostitution.

The way this country was set up, on certain subjects, states are untouchable. This is to protect them from people who are unfamiliar with their local situations.

Is prostitution a basic individual right?.

Private sexual acts between consenting adults can't be prohibited/outlawed/criminalized.

Commercial aspects of the trade of prostitution can be reasonably regulated, but 'sin' cannot be criminalized by decree. -- Got it yet hugh?

Got it? Yes, you're definitely afraid to answer that question.

Weird remark, seeing that I just did so.

The trade itself is not merely "reasonably regulated", but prohibited outright,

Not true. Show me the decrees. --- The commercial aspects of sex for hire are regulated, not private acts between consenting adults.

in 49 states, excercising their 10th Amendment rights with their republican form of government.

Republican forms of government abide by their Constitutions, which forbid infringements on an individuals rights.

Fess up hugh. You see women who use their bodies to obtain favors from men as evil whores & criminals, and contend that government can jail them. -- Get over this obsession lad, -- its not healthy.

Akston decrees:

The way this country was set up, on certain subjects, states are untouchable. This is to protect them from people who are unfamiliar with their local situations.

Ahh yesss hugh.. On "certain subjects", like evil women, evil guns, the devil booze, whatever, the State can dictate 'law', is that it?

How pitiful you've become hugh. Now you're spouting paulsens line.

The way this country was set up, on certain subjects, states are untouchable.

I agree. However, we are a Nation of Laws and enumerated powers for our government. There are procedures and votes to be taken before a State body can be said to have a power. If it isn't in the Constitution, ie; the Contract with the People, then they cannot legitimately be said to have power in that area.

That we have gotten so far away from that founding principle of a Republic is a measure of how far from our ideal we really are. Passing a simple law or statute should never be the minimal mark for making a behavior criminal. Regulatory power like that should only come from a Constitutional Mandate.

Otherwise, you end up with California style weapons bans and Minnesota style Light Rail after the people themselves had voted them down on referendum.

South Carolina has outlawed prostitution. - H.Akston

______________________________________

"Unconstitutionally," - tpaine

Will you be filing suit against your state (assuming it's not Nevada) for outlawing prostitution? You won't have much luck. I'd love to come watch the show. Please let me know.

It's much harder for a state to outlaw guns than to outlaw prostitution. A state is prohibited from doing the former, but not from doing the latter.

You won't find me "allied with the gungrabbing blue nosed prohibitionist cultists". You won't find me allied with those who have contempt for 10th Amendment rights, either. That's why we disagree.

How does a State get its power? From the People right? What is the mechanism by which "We the People" give our government power to do certain things?

A. Constitution
B. Elect Legislators that pass Laws on just any old thing that crosses their itty-bitty minds.
c. Pull it out of a hat.

tpaine, myself, and the Founders favored option #1. Whether you realize it or not, you are advocating option #2.

There are an indefinite number of things a State might need to do. You can't list them all in a State's Constitution. A certain amount of discretion is delegated by the People to the Legislators, by the Constitution.

We don't get protected by a Constitution because it lists every single thing that a state shall not do, we get protected because it lists the fundamental things that a state shall not do, and because it divides the government into branches that check and balance each other.

For example, SC's Constitution says that:

"Sec. 10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy 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, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained."

This provides protection from any number of things that the Legislature MAY do - such as outlaw prostitution. They can outlaw prostitution, but they can't peep into your windows at night to see if you're trading money for sex. This is the protection that you and tpaine are depending on. But SC does have the power to outlaw prostitution.

"If it isn't in the Constitution, ie; the Contract with the People, then they cannot legitimately be said to have power in that area."
"Passing a simple law or statute should never be the minimal mark for making a behavior criminal. Regulatory power like that should only come from a Constitutional Mandate."

From Federalist 45 (Madison):

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

See, states have powers that are "numerous and indefinite". It wouldn't be practical to expect that every specific power be listed in a State constitution before the legislature is allowed to exercise it. The legitimacy of the power comes from the more general language of the Constitution, which insures things such as the people who make laws are affected by people who have to live with them.

Then why bother having a State Constitution then? If not to delegate a certain amount of power to the State Government?

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.

All those powers were lump summed down to the States and the people of those States. It was up to them to come up with their own Constitutions for their State governments. The People could make their State Constitution mandate that everyone wear BLUE colored clothing only for State business. but it would still need to be an enumerated power to the State. Otherwise, you would be giving nearly unlimited power to your State government. Surely you are stupid enough to think that the Founders would approve of such a system.

South Carolina has outlawed prostitution.
-hugh-

______________________________________

Unconstitutionally, just like CA has 'outlawed' assault weapons.

Give up the pretense Hugh, and admit you're allied with the gungrabbing blue nosed prohibitionist cultists.
380 by tpaine

______________________________________

You left out shameless.
386 pikes

______________________________________

He brands himself with that on most every recent post.

Damn shame, seeing that he started out on this thread defending the supremacy of constitutional law. Weird fella.
387 tpaine

______________________________________

It's much harder for a state to outlaw guns than to outlaw prostitution. A state is prohibited from doing the former, but not from doing the latter.

You won't find me "allied with the gungrabbing blue nosed prohibitionist cultists".

You won't find me allied with those who have contempt for 10th Amendment rights, either. That's why we disagree.
388 hugh

_________________________________________

You really imagine that you've countered our arguments by your denials, don't you hugh? -- Get real. You advocate prohibitional powers for States. - Case closed.

H.Akston wrote:

SC's Constitution says that:
"Sec. 10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy 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, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained."

This provides protection from any number of things that the Legislature MAY do - such as outlaw prostitution.

Exactly hugh. Again, you are making our argument. Thanks.

They can outlaw prostitution,

How daft. No, hugh, they have no legal/constitutional power to outlaw prostitution, because:

-- they can't peep into your windows at night to see if you're trading money for sex.

This is the protection that you and tpaine are depending on.

Exactly, -- such a prohibitory law would violate Sec. 10 of the SC Constitution, in its enforcement. You just admitted that hugh.

But SC does have the power to outlaw prostitution.

Absurd conclusion, hugh. You can't have it both ways.

Give it up, -- you are playing a legalistic, bizarre word game to defend your position.

The People could make their State Constitution mandate that everyone wear BLUE colored clothing only for State business. but it would still need to be an enumerated power to the State.
Otherwise, you would be giving nearly unlimited power to your State government.

Surely you aren't stupid enough to think that the Founders would approve of such a system.

392 Dead Corpse

_____________________________________

It has become more than abundantly clear that he is.

"Exactly, -- such a prohibitory law would violate Sec. 10 of the SC Constitution, in its enforcement. You just admitted that hugh."

Pure Unadulterated Nonsense. Not everyone solicits prostitution on private property behind closed doors.

Yes you'd like me to give up. Not just yet though. I like to laugh. When are you going to sue NC, VA, and SC for outlawing prostitution?

-- they can't peep into your windows at night to see if you're trading money for sex.
This is the protection that you and tpaine are depending on.

Exactly, -- such a prohibitory law would violate Sec. 10 of the SC Constitution, in its enforcement.
You just admitted that hugh.

But SC does have the power to outlaw prostitution.

Absurd conclusion, hugh. You can't have it both ways.
Give it up, -- you are playing a legalistic, bizarre word game to defend your position.

Pure Unadulterated Nonsense. Not everyone solicits prostitution on private property behind closed doors.

Who claimed they did?
The public/commercial aspects of prostitution are quite easily & constitutionally regulated by the State. Nevada is a good example.

Yes you'd like me to give up. Not just yet though. I like to laugh.

Hugh, the big laugh here is your irrational position. Do yourself a favor and get real.

"Otherwise, you would be giving nearly unlimited power to your State government. Surely you are stupid enough to think that the Founders would approve of such a system"

"surely you are stupid enough"? Or did you mean to say "surely you aren't stupid enough"?

It wouldn't be practical to expect that every specific power be listed in a State constitution before the legislature is allowed to exercise it. The legitimacy of the power comes from the more general language of the Constitution, which insures things such as the people who make laws are affected by people who have to live with them.

Checks and balances and representation prevent the absurdities you're citing as examples of what could happen - Not specific authorizing language.

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.