Posted on 06/11/2009 1:53:18 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
I surrender. Who would be in there slugging it out on our side?
Amen.
And thus according to Judge S, just because the Feds banned slavery, there is no reason any State should feel it can’t allow slavery.
“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.”
So, let me ask a question for clarity: If the Constitution is supreme and all states are bound by it, then is the 2nd amendment violated every time a "common sense" restriction is passed by a State, city, county, etc.?
My understanding of the supreme standing of the Constitution is that it totally trumps anything the states do. Therefore, there can be NO LAW passed of any type regarding guns ANYWHERE. Do I have that right?
*crickets*
FYI, there is no NEED for the Supremes to consider 2nd Amendment “Incorporation”! FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
You could make that argument. That's why the NRA fights EVERY new gun law. Over time, judges and the courts have tried to alter the clear meaning of the Constitution to fit their ideologies, but in reviewing the writings of the founding fathers its pretty clear what their intentions were.
Lets review: The powers not specified in the Constitution are reserved for the States (10th Amendment, paraphrased). This gives the states a lot of rights, until they interpreted that congress's right to regulate interstate commerce applied to just about everything. That took away most of the rights of the states. Monatana is challenging that interpretation, saying they don't have to follow federal gun laws for any guns manufactured and sold within the state. A few other states are considering similar actions.
No state can make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities (in other words, the rights) of the citizens (14th Amendment, paraphrased). I think this restates the Supremacy Clause in another way. The states cannot tinker with the unalienable rights that are endowed by our creator. I would call the right to self defense one of those unalienable rights, wouldn't you? "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.
Elections matter because judges matter. Heller was a 5-4 decision, that could have easily gone the other way with one more liberal on the bench. Had that happened, none of us would be legally keeping our arms.
Mine, too.
LOL, when she IS full of it...
That’s funny. It reminds me of when my husband went to the Catholic church as a young man. He and a friend were sitting in the front row when his friend let one go that resounded throughout the entire church on those wooden benches. He still laughs about it today. NO cushions then.
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.