Posted on 08/06/2014 10:53:12 AM PDT by ForYourChildren
Exactly!
If all of the Democrats, all of the independents, most of the Republicans, the President, Congress and usually the Supreme Court act as if we don't have a Constitution....then we don't have a Constitution. We need to stop pretending as if we did.
When the right tries to use the Constitution as a defense for their platform they are only playing into the hands of the left. It is similar to a Christian using verses of the Bible to an atheist to defend their belief on a particular issue. The atheist doesn't care what the Bible says about it. But you can be absolutely certain that the atheist will use verses from the Bible which seem to support their position or indicate a conflict with what a Christian believes. In this way, if both parties don't agree on the supremacy of the document, the thing you are using to support your argument only serves as a weapon to be used against you.
There is hope though. The principals in the Constitution are timeless and will always win out when used in an argument.
Instead of saying, "I believe the second amendment guarantees my right to own a gun." You should say, "I believe that we should all be ultimately responsible for our own safety and protection, whether from a criminal or a tyrant. Therefor I believe that I have a natural right to own a gun."
We need to start at the beginning and re-assert the principals behind the Constitution rather than assume everyone understands or agrees with them.
Logically, yes.
But the soaring, untouchable wisdom [sarc] of the Supreme Court said [via Wickard] that The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices.
— where practices affecting such prices really means intrastate commerce and [by Raich] non-commerce.
There is no need for a state to “exempt” itself from such a gun law, because it would not be applicable to a gun which is made in the state, sold only in that state.
Technically true; however most people have bought the lie that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is
and therefore believe that Wickard is entirely binding despite the glaring flaw: the interstate commerce clause is the same clause that allows regulation of foreign commerce.
That's important, because it means that the two powers are the same power. So, by saying that it can regulate intrastate commerce via interstate commerce it is also saying that it can regulate commerce inside another country, which is obviously false. Indeed, such a claim would either be laughed off, or a cause of war. (And forcing the issue would be the result of conquering the country.) So then, the claim that the federal government can regulate intrastate commerce is the equivalent to declaring war on the several states, and its enforcement is either (a) the waging of that war, or (b) the result of conquering the states.
Treason is defined in the Constitution as waging war on the states — so by enforcing this claim over intrastate commerce the federal government is asserting that it is waging war on the states, or that it already has.
ping
“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
Federal court decision: “A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942).”
“The idea, never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid,..”
And what sort of fool accepts the Supreme Court decisions as valid?
Sooner or later, we have to ask the logical question, “What army do they have?”
And, if our army obeys their swearing in vows, they’ll reply, “Don’t expect help from the US Army, supremes, you’re on your own.”
If Murdock is correct, why do I pay a $200 transfer tax on title 2 firearms? Also, I’d love to see 18 USC 922 (o) go away.
oh I know you know this...
I just like the quotes and figured your post was a good one to use a link... they are kinda related...
Not since the Civil War. The Civil War was actually more about State’s Rights than slavery. Good getting rid of slavery, bad getting rid of State’s Rights
Sadly I don't think this will be the case.
Consider, for a second, the following scenario: A general in charge of many troops uses his authority to move to the border and forcibly secure it.
Stand Downwould be, by definition, an illegal order as it is contrary to the highest law in the land: the Constitution.
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort, actions against such a move could, and should, be considered Treason.
Washington and Colorado have already exempted themselves from Federal drug laws so I guess the answer is yes.
great point. one part of the constitution can’t restrict a part of the constitution that explicitly states it can’t be infringed. amendments may change parts that don’t have such protections, but not the ones that do. and the amendment process is hard to do even then.
if libtard gun grabbers went after abortion the way they go after guns, ....
and we have a whole explicit amendment for guns/rkba, they invented the right to abortion out of nothing.
I checked the Constitution too it says: “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.”
Washington’s hand picked employees in black robes notwithstanding, Congress was never empowered to to make laws infringing the people’s right to keep and bare arms period. Yet on countless occupations in the 20th century they have done so with the rubber stamp of their hand picked employees in black-robes.
The Federal Constitution ether means nothing and thus the question is academic, or Washington as discarded it, and thus the argument of right is still academic.
Then there's the 14th...
Getting tired of having to restate the obvious over and over again.
“Why not? If the feds or the president can decide not enforce the Health Care Act and immigration law, if local governments can establish safe havens for federally illegal drugs and create safe havens for illegal aliens, why not the ignore various fed laws on fire arms?”
What Federal laws on Firearms I thought the 2nd amendment said they couldn’t have any laws infringing upon our right to keep and bare arms?
Looking at the conflict from the North’s side it was about the right to self-government, or rather the compete lack there of for the south.
The North Never had any interest in getting rid of slavery and would have just as soon thrown Lincoln out of office had he proposed it at the beginning.
So the 10th amendment is just a "theory" now?
-PJ
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.