Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
Preempting state law with centralized power and ad hoc rule from the bench is. You keep singing the same old song.
There we get into the concept of “government endorsement of religion” and individual rights.
I firmle believe that, although teachers, at school, cannot endorse religion, a student can, in a speech, laud whatever god he wishes. I believe the constitution protects that for the student for he is not an agent of the state. And if the teacher is on his own time and not acting in official government capacity, he can do the same. And no city or state (or federal) law should stop him, if it is to be considered constitutional.
Just an opinion, of course.
No, judicial incorporation and discoveries of emanations of penumbras didn't come till much later.
So now that whole Constitution thingie is out the window?
I'm ok with that. I'll stop paying my Federal income tax right now.
As a side note: I would have preferred a "Revised Articles of Confederation" that included a "Bill of Rights Declaration" for all US citizens to point to as common Rights. It would have obviated the need for this entire discussion.
1833 to be exact...
As applied to the federal government, as the Framers intended.
Except for that pesky Art 6 para 2 thing, you'd be right.
As it is, you are still wrong.
They had that right of free speech until the federal judiciary used an "incorporated" First Amendment to silence their speech.
Except for the Framers universally rejecting your facile misinterpretation of it.
Constitution haters often say that.
I would like a vote as too how many on FR think the 2nd Amendment is a right.
“Yeah, let’s vote to determine what the intent of the Framers was. Very Obama of ya.”
Very funny Einstein. You are all for the corrupt leftists out of Chicago limiting gun rights and yet you call me Obama. Did you trip over a mirror when you wrote that.
I’m glad I live in a state that has enacted robust constitutional protections that make such opinions irrelevant where I live. Heller gives me the space I need from the federal government. At the state and local levels I don’t think it’s a good idea to have to rely on any branch of the federal government to step in to define and defend my right to keep and bear arms.
They represent the state. Their speech cannot be silenced, except when on the job. At least, my opinion is it shouldn’t be.
Otherwise, all government employees would have no first amendment rights. And at the rate we are going regarding the percentage of the country that works for the various branches of government, that would imply that soon no US citizen would have first amendment rights. ;)
Then the restriction asserts a RIGHT that preexisted it. The operative phrase of the 2nd Amendment is an assertion that a RIGHT of the people shall not be infringed.
You mean like this one?
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789
Or this one?
"They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights....the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government..." - 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson amp Rutland, 12:193, 204) The Papers of James Madison 8 June 1789
Or this one?
The difficulties which present themselves are on one side almost sufficient to dismay the most sanguine, whilst on the other side the most timid are compelled to encounter them by the mortal diseases of the existing constitution. These diseases need not be pointed out to you who so well understand them. Suffice it to say that they are at present marked by symptoms which are truly alarming, which have tainted the faith of the most orthodox republicans, and which challenge from the votaries of liberty every concession in favor of stable Government not infringing fundamental principles, as the only security against an opposite extreme of our present situation. I think myself that it will be expedient in the first place to lay the foundation of the new system in such a ratification by the people themselves of the several States as will render it clearly paramount to their Legislative authorities. 2dly. Over & above the positive power of regulating trade and sundry other matters in which uniformity is proper, to arm the federal head with a negative in all cases whatsoever on the local Legislatures. Without this defensive power experience and reflection have satisfied me that however ample the federal powers may be made, or however Clearly their boundaries may be delineated, on paper, they will be easily and continually baffled by the Legislative sovereignties of the States. The effects of this provision would be not only to guard the national rights and interests against invasion, but also to restrain the States from thwarting and molesting each other, and even from oppressing the minority within themselves by papermoney and other unrighteous measures which favor the interest of the majority. - James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24 November 6, 1786-February 29, 1788
Or this one?
"My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging wars against tyrants." - Patrick Henry (Elliot, 3:47-48; in Virginia Ratifying Convention, before Bill of Rights)
Or this one?
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tenche Coxe (introduction to his discussion, and support, of the 2nd Amend) "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, pg.2
Or this one?
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the State. Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." - James Madison, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779 (NOTE: also attributed to Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788)
Or this one?
"(The Constitution should be) never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures." - Samuel Adams, U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788; as reported in "Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
Or this one?
"The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurption and arbitraty power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution, 1883
Yeah... There are more. But these sufficiently demolish your idiotic assertion.
You're the one who wants to void state protections in favor of rule from the bench. Obama must love ya.
That's pretty sick in the head Roscoe. I think that desert heat is starting to melt what was left of your frontal cortex.
You're good with federal judges silencing speech on the job in the name of the 1st Amendment? Orwell lives.
What happens when that great state you live in is overrun by leftists and statists who elect liberal gun-grabbing dems that appoint leftist judges and pass gun-grabbing laws. When the leftist/statist judges decide that your state constitution doesn't protect you from the leftist/statist legislature, you would prefer the notion being advocated on this thread that states are free to abrogate the right of the people to bear arms all they want? You are satisfied that at least the federal government is prohibited from taking your guns away?
The restriction on powers delegated to the federal government.
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.