Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments
So centralizing power does what?
Your facile rationalization is not the meaning of the words as written, as the Framers "universally" recognized.
I’ll ask this [rhetorical] question again: Why is it so all fired important at this point in the nation’s history to chip away at our basic right of self defense?
Why is it so hard to understand that restricting the rights of the Law-abiding only empowers the criminal element of society?
Now you get it. Judicial activism isn’t new.
Article VI is as clear as glass. Section 2 clearly restricts the states when state laws are in conflict with federal law and the Constitution.
I’ve come to realize that the founders actually made a mistake in how they set up the Supreme Court.
Wasn’t the original intent of the Constitution to provide for the common defense and encourage instate commerce?
Are you going somewhere with that?
More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the StateRight here we have explicit language in a Supreme Court decision, that the right of free citizens in the United States includes the right " to keep and carry arms wherever they went"
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their 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; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle on the Second Amendment
Art 6 para 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It's "own citizens" being the citizens of the state in question, protected by their state constitutions.
If you agree with previous ACTIVIST and racist Courts that certain classes of people shouldn't have those Rights protected, then that is a personal failing. Not a Constitutional one...
We've been over all of this before. Do we REALLY need to do it again? You were wrong then and it doesn't look like anything has changed since.
The point was that was original reason to formulate the Constitution, not as a means of Centralized control.
You never miss an opportunity to be humiliated. Rawle wrote:
"An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment."Poor you.
"Appealed to as a restraint on BOTH"...
You are still fishing Roscoe and coming up tin cans and tires.
Okay. Is there a point to your point?
It would be an immunity I suppose; immunity from interference by the government.
But, mince words all you like. You cannot wish away a part of the Constitution. Liberals tried that with the 2nd Amendment and it didn’t work either. “The people” means the people, and not the National Guard. “No State shall make or enforce any law...” means no State shall make or enforce any law... If you are unhappy with the results of either amendment, there is a process to change them.
Make all the rhetorical appeals you want. Loser.
Talk about mincing words. "The" government?
The original intent of the Constitution to provide for the common defense and encourage interstate commerce, not as a means of Centralized control.
That IS the point.
So?
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.