Posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine
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.
He then goes on to bash our 2nd Amendment:
"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 The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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."
Know you enemy.. This man Steve Mount is NOT a friend of our Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...
Had Mason, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and all the anti-federalists fought for a Bill of Rights that increased the powers of the federal government through Article 6- which is your contention- they were all indeed fools or liars.
Pitiful.
You are reduced to repeating your inane little bit about lawsuits.
Poor little hughie. He came here to teach a lesson, and now can't even get anyone to pay attention to his jokes.
"The public/commercial aspects of prostitution are quite easily & constitutionally regulated by the State. Nevada is a good example."
"regulated" only applies to Nevada. "regulated" implies it's tolerated and controlled by the state. Nothing of the sort happens in the other states. What it is, is "made illegal", which means "outlawed".
All of a sudden, you forgot about VA NC and SC! (where it is outlawed.)
That is not my contention.
They fought for a Bill of Rights to try and blunt the acknowledged effects of Article 6.
You are reduced to claiming that no state can outlaw prostitution! You have such contempt for the 10th Amendment.
You may want to inform the Illinois legislators of that "fact".
At last count, handguns are banned in Chicago, Wilmette, and Morton Grove.
The Morton Grove ban (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) was challenged in federal district court as a violation of the second amendment. The district court ruled "that the second amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms has not been incorporated into the fourteenth amendment and, therefore, is inapplicable to Morton Grove."
The case was appealed to the seventh circuit. They said "Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms."
Now, perhaps you can tell me where you get, "A state is prohibited from doing the former (outlaw guns)"?
Yet you say that it didn't. That it instead expanded the federal government powers. Specifically that federal courts could enforce it upon the states' dealings with their own citizens.
The anti-federalists would have to have been fools not to realize that- if it were true.
You may want to inform the Illinois legislators of that "fact".
If any of them read FR, I already have.
And I've stated my sound reasons for saying so.
The Supremacy clause binds the judges in every state to everything in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that it only restrains congress, it therefore restrains Congress and the States. The 14th "incorporation doctrine" is flawed and redundant.
Yet you say that it didn't. That it instead expanded the federal government powers. Specifically that federal courts could enforce it upon the states' dealings with their own citizens.
I did not say that it didn't blunt those effects from the FEDERAL government. That's what they were trying to do.
Mason was no fool, and he saw that the Federal Judiciary had been given too much power over the States by the Supremacy clause. That's partly why he dissented.
-- 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.
"regulated" implies it's tolerated and controlled by the state. Nothing of the sort happens in the other states. What it is, is "made illegal", which means "outlawed".
-- such prohibitory 'laws' would violate Sec. 10 of the SC Constitution, in their enforcement. You just admitted that hugh.
All of a sudden, you forgot about SC! (where it is outlawed.)
Unconstitutionally outlawed, hugh, as you just admitted. -- Such laws cannot be enforced without violations of other individual rights.
How dense can you get? You seem to be topping yourself with every post.
You are reduced to claiming that no state can outlaw prostitution!
That is a constitutional fact. No State has ever been given the power to dictate prohibitions on 'sinful behaviors' or on 'evil objects'.
You have such contempt for the 10th Amendment.
No hughie, I have contempt for those who try to use the 10th to dictate prohibitions on 'sinful behaviors' or on 'evil objects'.
You were saying that it gave MORE power to the feds.
That they were given power by the Bill of Rights to enforce the Second- and I assume any other amendment in the Bill of Rights that didn't refer only to the congress- upon the states.
If I misunderstood you, I'm relieved. That was very obviously not their intent.
You are reduced to claiming that no state can outlaw prostitution!
That is a constitutional fact. No State has ever been given the power to dictate prohibitions on 'sinful behaviors' or on 'evil objects'.
You have such contempt for the 10th Amendment.
No hughie, I have contempt for ALL of those who try to use the 10th to dictate prohibitions on 'sinful behaviors' or on 'evil objects'.
---Amended ---
That is a constitutional fact. No State has ever been given the power to dictate prohibitions on 'sinful behaviors' or on 'evil objects'.
Is that so? - How do you know the legislators think it's sinful or 'evil'? Suppose they don't want to deal with the regulatory mess, so they just outlaw it altogether? Suppose they think it will lower property values, so they outlaw it altogether? You're the one who introduced morality to the subject, when the reasons could have been purely practical - even financial.
You're Clintonizing. You deny that states can outlaw prostitution, then twist the words around, prattling on about states not being given the power to prohibit 'evil' 'sinful' behaviors... When the sad fact (for you) is that VA, NC, and SC have all outlawed prostitution!
"Unconstitutionally outlawed, hugh, as you just admitted. --" tpaine
I never admitted any such thing.
Such laws cannot be enforced without violations of other individual rights.
You live in a fantasy world.
-- 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.
I never admitted any such thing.
415 by H.Akston
You wrote that, just above. -- 'Admit' it or not, that is the fact.
That's not the only way you can get caught for prostitution. Suppose they have a search warrant. Sec 10 provides for that, given probable cause to believe that someone is violating the law. You said there's no way to enforce the law without violating unalienable rights! What a joke.
You're so lame. Have a look at this: http://www.terranova.net/Sheriffs-Report/
Owner of Escort Service must move out of the County Monroe County - The owner of an county-wide escort business run out of a home on Big Pine Key pled guilty May 27th to four misdemeanor charges and two felony charges relating to his occupation. 48 year old Michael Knezevich, owner of the Heavenly Bodies Escort Service, was arrested April 14th after he was caught during a prostitution sting in Marathon. He was charged with forcing a person to become a prostitute, deriving support from the proceeds of prostitution, offering to procure a person for the purpose of prostitution and with transporting a person for the purpose of prostitution. Sheriff's detectives with the Special Investigations Division were investigating a number of complaints from citizens about the escort service operated by Knezevich, and other escort businesses operating in the County. On April 28th, detectives served a search warrant at his home on Lobstertail Road on Big Pine Key. They found evidence that he was operating the escort service from that location, and found recording devices set up in several areas where it appears he may have been video taping sexual encounters without the knowledge of his partners. They also found two firearms in the house. At the time, Knezevich had a restraining order filed against him which prohibited him from possessing firearms, so he was charged with contempt of court and the guns were seized. He appeared in court on May 27th and pled guilty to a total of four misdemeanor charges and two felony charges. He was sentenced to 10 days in the county jail and received four years of probation. As a part of the plea agreement, he must also sell his home and move out of the county within 90 days. One of the conditions of his probation is that he not engage in any type of escort business and that he have no contact with any victims or witnesses in the cases in question
That's not the only way you can get caught for prostitution. Suppose they have a search warrant. Sec 10 provides for that, given probable cause to believe that someone is violating the law. ---
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.
In the case you've quoted, the State/County were doing exactly that,
-- and I have no problems with Monroe Counties actions.
Then you have no problems with a state outlawing prostitution.
"Fourth, I think the author is correct -- I think that our society views our freedom to bear arms as those arms "reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense". I believe that society neglects the fact that the primary purpose of the second amendment was to protect against tyranny.
"
Great quote from Henry today on the true need for the 2nd Amendment:
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! ... Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" --Patrick Henry
To punish Tyrants, primary purpose. You're correct.
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.