Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
Right, because no states use a Grand Jury. Nice head shot.
Now answer the question.
If they wanted to amend their state constitutions, they would have amended their state constitutions.
The US Constitution already delegated limited powers to the newly formed federal government. The purpose of the constitutional convention that incorporated the Bill of Rights was for clarifying federal and state powers, and also for clarifying rights retained by the people (not just the states).
During the process, some restrictions were specifically imposed on Congress; other rights of the people were asserted as declaratory rights that may not be infringed. Unless the participants of the convention were stupid (which you have already argued they were not) this distinction of declaratory rights and restrictions of congressional powers was done for a reason. There was no need to amend state constitutions.
Look, the document should be read through the eyes of "We the people", not we the founders of we the framers or we the masons.As in “
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
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?I know how I would answer that question – But then I support an Individual's right of self-defense.
Right.
In 1789, the first year the Bill of Right was being debated and rewritten, Pennsylvania had a requirement that its citizens must take an oath of allegiance to the state in order to be allowed to bear arms.
>>If they want to amend the Constitution, there’s a nonjudicial process for that.<<
I firmly agree!
How are they trying to do that?
Oh, no. You're not back on your "fringe on the flag" nonsense, are you?
Bzzzt. Wrong.
Some do, some don't.
I’m beginning to think you are a troll trying to keep people posting on this thread. No offense.
Not going to answer are you?
It wasn't done by the Framers. Maybe by you.
Exactly. Well said...
The premise your question was based on has been proven false. You want to ignore that.
Are you still clinging to your penumbras and emanations as well?
Indeed, every state uses the grand jury for at least some purpose, with many using grand juries both to bring criminal charges and to investigate civil and/or criminal matters. The sections below explain how state grand juries compare to federal grand juries in terms of their structure and the activities they carry out.
I didn’t post it, it’s not my thread. But it is a target rich environment full of posters who want the courts to further alter the Constitution without bothering with that pesky Amendment process.
All of your's have been repeatedly refuted, years ago. As well as in this thread.
Sorry, Yappy.
Yes, I’ve already acknowledge you and agree. What is your point?
That is what I don’t understan. Ultimately, all your posts seem to point to a belief that the constitution of the united states does not limit local government as well.
Is this true?
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.