Replies

There are statist/communitarian's here who claim the boys are only protected by their state constitution, - thus, - the USSC will not hear this case because the second amendment protects only against a federal infringement, not state infringement. -

The original intent of the federal Contitution was to limit the power of the federal goverment to specifically enumerated powers. That is why each state had its own constitution, which usually mirrored the federal one. Only relatively recently has the interpretation been such that the federal government (through the courts) sees itself as having jurisdiction over the state and local governments through the federal Constitution. It is a usurpation of power for the federal court system to think it can micro-manage, for example the administration of a local school district based on the federal Bill of Rights, a list of rights which were meant to limit the federal government's meddling in local affairs, not increase it. Worse yet is when federal courts place injunctions on or overturn state laws, such as prop 187 in California, using the Bill of Rights as an excuse. That is EXACTLY the type of overbearing, tyrannical centralized government that the founders were trying to prevent.

The thinking that you have, where the federal Constitution has jurisdiction over the States, actually grants the federal government MORE power, and reduces the States to mere serfs. At teh beginning of our country, it was inconceivable that the federal government would tell a local school board how to run its schools, but that is commonplace now, because, instead of protecting us FROM the federal government, the Bill of Rights has become a tool used BY the federal government against us. Now, when some federal activist judge decides he doesn't like the way some kids in a particular school are expressing anti-homosexual Christian scripture, he merely waves his hand and says that "separation of church and state" says these kids have to shut up. If that same judge wants to promote homosexuality in a school, he waves his hand and says "freedom of speech" for the gay parade. However, if we were to take the original intent of the federal Constitution, taht judge would have no power to meddle in local affairs because he can only use the Bill of Rights against FEDERAL law and FEDERAL agencies. Then, the citizens of each state can actually live free of the fear of the all-powerful federal goverment.

“The original intent of the federal Contitution was to limit the power of the federal goverment to specifically enumerated powers.”

You are half correct. The other intent of our founding fathers in writing the bill of rights (that is part of the federal constitution) is to outline basic human rights that they stated did not come from the government, but come from your creator. The only role of the government in this case is to outline those rights and safeguard those rights for us. Rights such as free speech, unreasonable search and seizures, right against self incrimination, right to a speedy trial etc. Among those listed rights is also the right to keep and bear arms.

That means that the federal government has a duty to protect our civil rights as outlined in the bill of rights. Be it from an outside source or from a state government. For instance, you probably do not believe that a state government has a right to outlaw trial by jurys because that is one of our civil rights. Why is it different for keeping and bearing arms?

I wanted to break up my reply to you in two sections. Your example of judges telling local schools what to do based on the first amendment is flawed. The federal government does have a right to protect the first amendment if it is being violated in a public school.

The problem with the federal judges are that they are misinterpreting the original intent of the freedom of religion clause in the first amendment. The clause says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

This was put in not to protect the government from religion, but the people from a state sponsored government religion. Our founding fathers did not want a system set up like England whereby the government proclaimed the state religion to be the Church of England (Episcopals).

If a bunch of students want to have a prayer meeting before school or something like that, the federal judge should be protecting the state or federal government trying to prohibit them. It is the judge misinterpreting the first amendment that you are angry with, not the first amendment.