Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
Yes, the debates, modifications and rewrites began in 1789. Thanks.
Considering it was judicial activism that changed the plain English in the Constitution, the courts are the correct venue for this.
Then answer the question since you do know what an enumerated right is.
Can a state make any law it deems fit to? Can a state ban guns? Can a state have warrantless searches? Can a state make it against the law to buy books?
I did.
“Note that the response doesn’t actually answer the question, it dodges it. It’s usually very indicative when someone refuses to answer a direct question that will take them off the Talking points they’re working with.’
Mojave could definitely get a job working for the Sarah Brady Bunch.
No you did not. You danced around it like a damn politician during a debate.
Just as state legislators are representatives of the people.
Now tell me again why “we the people” would ratify a doucment that allows State governments to disarm them
Their existing state constitutions and laws allowed or forbade that prior to the Constitutional Convention delegating limited powers to the newly formed federal government.
If they wanted to amend their state constitutions, they would have amended their state constitutions.
Any other strawmen you want demolished?
It can indict a criminal without a Grand Jury indictment, even though you claim that's an "enumerated right."
I'm still waiting for your explanation.
Your prior post said:
Our Bill of Rights was not ratified, or even written, in 1789.
Proposed amendments offered in Congress by James Madison, 1789 June 8.
Proposed amendments reported by the Select Committee, 1789 July 28.
Proposed amendments passed by the House of Representatives, 1789 August 24.
Proposed amendments passed by the Senate, 1789 September 9
Amendments proposed by Congress to the States, 1789 September 25.
So by the October date of the quote stating that the Bill of Rights asserts certain individual rights that cannot be infringed by any majority, not only had the BOR been written, but passed by both houses and referred to the states for ratification.
You asked what sort of right it was. False premise.
It’s not a right, it’s not even the source the right. It’s a restriction on federal powers.
Unless you really don’t know what the definition of “enumerated” is, you are again avoiding the question.
Please answer the question.
Nice foot shot.
Rights are not rights if the can be infringed for no reason at all by any government body at all. You're reading of the Second allows states to disarm the people for no reason at all. Logically it also allows them to deny them life, liberty or property for no reason or any reason at all.
Do you honestly think this is what the folks signed on to?
Forget incorporation doctrine and SCOTUS opinions. Do you really think early Americans fresh off a war fought with tyranny would sign on to such a notion?
Which were subsequently rewritten and revised.
Sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing. It wasn't until 1833, when Marshall was in the twilight of his years and possibly bordering on senility, that the Courts turned this on it's head.
Yes, I’ve noticed all through the thread it’s refusal to answer direct questions like this.
We could all ask some basic questions like this, but it’s highly doubtful it will answer.
Your assertion that there is an "enumerated right" to a Grand Jury indictment at the state level is false. You fell on your face coming off the blocks.
Do you need a bandaid for your foot?
The only time the "individual v. collective" distinction makes a difference is when the collective is less than the whole body of citizens capable of bearing arms. The collective rights advocates first redefine militia, then restrict the grant. But the militia is the whole body of citizens capable of bearing arms.
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.