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
Indeed so. If a state required Black men to register machine guns while exempting White men, that would violate equal protection.
The BoR is a positive declaration of our Rights as US Citizens. Regardless of which State we live in.
I have that on DVD. The dating rules part was hard (make that impossible) to take seriously. The rest was pretty good.
It's your opinion that the original intent of "the people" was to allow states but not the federal government to disarm them?
that clause was apparently left out of my copy of the Constitution and the one in the National Archives.
The FEDERAL government.
self-ping to read later
read the whole post.
The federal government cannot control free speech.
Neither can cities or states.
It is because they are controlled by the same constitution. These united states are all under the umbrella of the same constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to LIMIT GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS under it’s umbrella.
Of course...
Because an individual only has rights under the federal government. Not the state. So the state should/is free to make whatever law is deemed fit.
Right?
My next sentence after that one: This means that if the federal government cannot take away a certain right, then NO government under that umbrella can.
The umbrella is the government limiting constitution.
This is really US Government 101.
Backwards. Dred Scott held that state laws against slavery did NOT act free a slave taken there by his master. Taney rejected state law in favor of rationalizations of his own creation.
Just like you.
They expressed their intent regarding their states' powers through their states' constitutions. We have a federal, not a national, government.
At least for the moment.
Plain and intelligible language such as the use of phrases such as "Congress shall make no law" in certain places and phrases like "shall not be infringed" in other places.
Under Marshall's reasoning, the restrictions on Congress in Article I, Section 9, would apply only to Congress, and as such any state would be free to pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, suspend the privelige of Writ of Habeas Corpus, or grant titles of nobility. Obviously, if the states intended to apply those restrictions on themselves they could do so by modifying their own laws or constitutions.
Now watch Rosco use layer after layer of judicial activism to try and weasel around this. His hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
I notice how you still refuse to answer the simple question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment is a collective or individual right. Your answer makes it clear where you stand on this entire issue.
Was that a decision involving Sylvester Stallone's character in Judge Dredd? I believe I already mentioned the Dred Scott decision's rightful place in the dustbin of history of bad SCOTUS case law right alongside Barron.
Under the "incorporated" 1st Amendment, they silence prayers, build anti-speech zones around abortuaries and force townspeople to remove crucifixes from their town squares.
To your delight, no doubt.
It shouldn't. The universally understood intent of the Framers should stand against your desire to have the federal judiciary rewrite it.
You didn't answer the question. The document was ratified by "the people", not by the founders. Why would the people assign states the power to infringe on their natural rights for no reason or any reason at all?
And why would the federal government give states the power to disarm the militia when the US Constitution gives the federal government the power to call up that militia?
Actually it restated the plainly written text with the court's "universal understanding" of the framers' intent which the framers so cleverly hid in the penumbras visible while wearing black robes. Changing the meaning of the words from what they actually say to what they would have said had they been written according to one's "universal understanding" of the intent is pretty much the classical definition of judicial activism.
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.