Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 08/06/2014 10:53:12 AM PDT by ForYourChildren
THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States…to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.”
– Excerpt from a Kansas law, ..S.B 102 and titled the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” enacted ..last year.. Kansas was the latest of several states to pass such laws.
“The far-reaching nullification provisions of the Act are unconstitutional on their face under long-standing, fundamental legal principles. Neither the Kansas legislature, nor any state legislature, is empowered to declare federal law ‘invalid,’ or to criminalize the enforcement of federal law. Any legislation or state action seeking to nullify federal law is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the United States Constitution.”
– Excerpt from a lawsuit filed in federal court in Kansas on July 9, seeking a ruling that would strike down the Kansas law on gun rights.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
From time to time in American constitutional history, a revival of states’ rights sentiment has led to efforts to place state governments between citizens and the federal government, to thwart excessive use of national power. The idea, never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid, is based on the theory that the Constitution was actually a creature of the states, joining together in a compact to give some – but not all – power to a central government. The states, the theory goes, are the ultimate arbiters of how governing power should be distributed and exercised.
{excerpt}
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to the states anymore than your State legislator is referred to as Congress in the Federal Constitution rather than the State legislator.
The Federal Employees in black robes decided to rewrite our constitution as to apply their own limitations upon our states, with far more honesty than upon themselves not-surprisingly.
Indeed it was the whole point of the 9th amendment to say that they could not do that. But they decided the 14th amendment empowered them to do whatever the hell they wanted, thus rendering the rest of the document more or less moot.
Federal black robed Employee logic is perhaps the most absurdly self-serving logic you are likely to find in the western hemisphere. Respected perhaps only by those who find it beneficial, EG lawyers, politicians, and other rent seeking individuals & businesses.
There is also the 9th amendment that the enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That is exactly what people are trying to do with gun rights.
Also, regarding the Commerce Clause, isn't the question really about whether "regulating" commerce includes preventing commerce at all? "Regulating" presumes that commerce continues, just in an orderly way. Banning the sale of guns doesn't "regulate" it, it ends it.
If the end result is no commerce, then does the Commerce Clause still apply?
-PJ
Exactly. The feral goobermint has flipped the Constitution and their rightful masters the bird with Wickard et al., so there's two ways to look at this, and via either path, the states come off righteous here.
1) Since the ferals are in fact in violation of the Constitution, any action of the state that brings us closer to the original intent is laudable and valid.
2) When one party breaches a contract, it them becomes null and void and no longer binding on the other party. So even if this WOULD be unconstitutional were the ferals abiding by the contract, it no longer is.
Crap like this isn't going to stop till we stop the absurd practice of asking a branch of the federal government where the limits of power are....for the federal government.
I hope Brownback replied with a letter discussing at length Holder's right to have an opinion about the Constitution, or to voice it, given the Just Us Department's recent history in general, as well as with respect to firearms specifically.
10A, federalism, feral overreach thread
Of course! Just don’t do it!
The Second Amendment to the Constitution for these united States of America exempts individuals first and states second from federal gun laws. Why is this such a hard question to answer?
In answer to the question, the states can refuse to spend resources to enforce laws they find repugnant. Outright nullification, no.
So, because of a ‘mis-reading’ (IE: Commerce clause, Hell, the 14th A. for illegals, etc.) by some black-robbed thug, or selective enforcement by those in gov’t, and thus usurped powers not authorized by the Constitution, well, by golly, I guess that’s just fine and dandy?!
1) The 2nd A., in my humble reading, states NOBODY can infringe (State, nor Fed), regardless of where ‘parts’ (let alone ‘arms’, in that they encompass) originated
2) There’s the 9th/10th A. reaffirming the Feds to take-a-hike
3) Lastly, even using the Lefts tactic vis-a-vie ‘gay marriage’, there would be NO license/etc. laws per AZ, AK, etc.
I’ll continue to do my own thing since the ‘Law’ is counter to the simple English of the Constitution. Even if it weren’t, and one was caught, the ‘Law’ again is what the Power says it to be; it no longer is the solid foundation for the Lawful, but the boot on the neck of We the People.
Well, you might want to re-read Art 6 paragraph 2 and the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Our current government may not be running this way, State and Federal, but then again... This isn't the government the Founders laid out in the Constitution either.
We must be looking at a different “bill of rights” the one I have from the national archives preamble says this:
“Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”
Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I see nothing to suggest intent of incorporation against the states so ratifying.
All I have is the Ratified article’s twelve and eleven which were radifed as the 10th and 9th amendment’s respectively:
“
Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Article eleventh(AKA 9th amendment) is seems quite explicitly on the matter of non-incorporation as one basic right of the people is the right to govern themselves with their own State and local Constitution. Indeed that is the same foundational right with which the Federal Constitution was created.
Which explicitly states its declaratory and restrictive clauses apply not only to the FedGov, but to the States themselves via the Supremacy Clause.
It’s all there in black and parchment...
Considering Heller, that is really good.
I’m afraid, what I posted was all that was in the preamble and as you can see no such text exist.
The States never intended incorporation for a good reason. If some of the “bill of rights” were applied faithfully to states many states would have a hard time functioning with such a small set of powers.
Furthermore no rational population much-less state legislator would ever see any point to Washington imposing Constitutional limits upon their own state Governments.
State Government’s have their own Constitution’s for this propose. Constitutions written and radiated by the people living under them not people living a thousand miles away, in some distant, geographically and culturally alien part of the Federation.
Its absurd to even suggest such such top down impositions, and dangerous to attempt to implement them as we have seen countless times given the arbitrary lawlessness of the Federal Employees in black robes.
Well, wrong. They enshrined the BoR in the USCon as ameans of putting those Rights offlimits to anyone under the auspices of the Supremem Law of the Land. The State ratifiying convention minutes bear this view out.
I’m afraid I’ve read these things and can find no reference to such a radical and totally ill-rational position.
What you are proposing was not only not imagined but totally out of step with what the Founders were trying to do with the Bill of rights.
You must remember States all had their own constitutions already enshrining their own often different concepts of Good Government. They were afraid of Washington coming in and dictating its political context upon them as a tool of a distant and potentially hostile majority.
The first Amendment was actually point in case to this, as many if not most states had official religions the 9th and 10th amendment further emphasis theses points by spelling them out.
Im sorry but your trying to support a fantasy of incorporation that is in truth very dangerous and destructive to the very ends you desire. Freedom is not something that can be supported from the top down. It must be found in and supported from the bottom up. That means competition and most of all the power to vote with your feet.
If and when Washington find it with in its power to monopolize power over individuals everywhere it crushes that freedom permanently by way of suppressing any opportunity for people to rediscover it for themselves.
May as well admit you’ve read nothing...
“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 at the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
Mason has some good quotes too..
perhaps you could find some of them mason quotes, Albert Gallatin was a New York proponent of federal power.
That being said even your quote of him while technically true from some perspective doesn’t in itself support the notion of incorporation against the people and their states.
Yes the “bill of rights” can be seen as a deceleration of rights of the people “of the people at large or considered as individual”
Althou I do not agree that it establishes any right as unalienable for such rights were already unalienable, without enumeration. The matter of dispute is which rights are inalienable and which are merely prohibitions on the federal government.
I would contend that the right to self-government is by nature of its essence centrality to all other rights inalienable. But I would not contend that men cannot ceded their right to right to be without unwarranted search and measure, nor even necessarily a right to arms and free speech in all circumstances.
I am simply prepared to assert as they did, that Washington may never make any law upon theses very domestic subjects.
Washington was constructed to pay attention to the very dangerous world around us, not the world within us. Within we the people have our states to do that job.
http://www.gunstonhall.org/library/archives/manuscripts/objections.html
And seeing what our government has become, every warning of the various Founders have proven 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.