Posted on 09/06/2015 7:50:57 AM PDT by impimp
So I take it you are against gun ownership, and desire your state to ban all guns from its citizens. Am I correct in my assumption? If so, hope you enjoy your slavery.
States should be allowed to restrict gun ownership however they want to restrict it.
Then southern states should be able to reimpose slavery, too.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
According to what these people are citing and referencing to, that is a very true statement.
I really figured the ‘gun groups’ would jump all over the ruling that the Marriage must ‘count’ if one state approves and another doesn’t.
If that is the case, my carrying a gun from Virginia to Maine utilizing the entire 50 states and territories and have my Virginia issued permit granted and accepted in all the mentioned areas.
That is what the SC said - in effect - If the state of NY grants me a marriage license, the state of TN etal have to recognize the sovereignty of NY ...
As to the lady in TN, right wrong or indifferent she has to ‘obey’ the law in place until it is either shot down or verified. Some premise, don’t like the law, get another job or DO your job....
BUT
It does get tricky here, she is an elected position say the state - specifically her county voted to approve the marriages - then ‘they’ would say she was bound to the law.
If her county had disapproved the marriages, ‘they’ would say the ‘higher authority’ would take precedence.
Bottom line is, it is a ‘rigged deck’ and we are having 9 people more or less not only setting precedent, but also ‘making’ law -
They only use the Constitution to their benefit...
BTW...did BO have a private ‘swearing in for his 2nd term’?
I would imagine there is a law against a ‘private’ ceremony, if so, Roberts and BO should be held in contempt (Past my personal contempt etc)
Of course some wag would say “It wasn’t private, other people were in the building, just not in the same room”.
Worked for Clinton when asked if he and ML were ever alone in the White House.
No. I was a big fan of Heller until I realized how shallow I was being.
The lying worthless self serving bastards.
ALL of the bill of rights pertains to the federal government and nothing else. If it were to apply to the states, who BTW formed this federal tyrannical government, then there would be NO NEED for the tenth amendment.
Way past time for a general house cleaning by whatever means possible.
The states do have ultimate authority, IF they so choose. They have never acted upon their authority to call a constitutional convention and approve changes by 3/4ths if the state legislatures.
Those things didn’t theoretically happen. They did happen. Look it up.
Idiot.
L
I’m of the opinion that all of the Bill of Rights apply to every level of government, save the 10th, which specifically limits federal government in its’ very wording.
Corrected for grammar and punctuation.
Hope that helps.
Can I at least retain my right to trial by jury in matters of controversy of more than 20 dollars?
“The second amendment does not apply to the states.”
The Bill of Rights is not a “Bill of restrictions of the federal government”; it is a list of rights held by the people and not just when dealing with the federal government.
You need to learn civics, and common sense.
THIS, I can agree with. If the states want to amend the Bill of Rights, that's fine. If they want to make torture and unfair trials legal, that would be the way. Amend the Bill of Rights.
Until then -- well, after then, too -- the B.o.R. applies to them as well.
Nope. Not according to impimp. lol
Uh, no. Any elementary reading of this amendment, the 1st and many others are protections bestowed on the people. It’s a freedom thing. States don’t have rights to further restrict protected rights of the individual.
The 10th Amendment, since you've never read it:
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.
It means the States must obey the US Constitution. It does not mean the US constitution only restrains the federal government and We the People have no rights if the States decide to take them. Saying that it does means you have no clue what the fight for the Constitution was all about, nor about the founding concepts of this nation. Your public school education failed you.
“Frankly, SHOCKED that the SCOTUS is continuing to rule positively for gun rights. Once Roberts was compromised, I expected a continous series of anti-gun rulings.”
Well, looking at the big picture in DC with as much corruption and crooked politics happening between the three branches -— I would not let ANYTHING surprise me at this juncture. Regardless, good news that the SCOTUS is doing something right in terms of supporting the Constitution.
Gay marriage IS, in fact, judicial tyranny.
It's not in the Bill of Rights.
SCOTUS just made it up.
Granted but they are parsing to apply to a single situation whenever it tickles its fancy.
Like you say, if one follows ‘their’ logic the same law that say I have to bake you a cake should also allow me to NOT bake you a cake.
In a (very) wide sense of the disorder, it would be like me being in the Asphalt Paving business and you suing me for not putting in a Concrete Drive and the court agrees with YOU.
Yes, I may make cakes but I don’t makes cakes with ‘tallywackers’ on them or something like that.
Like Rush says, being absurd for absurdities sake.
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.
Amendments 1-9 and 11+ are the prohibative rules that the states may not infringe.
So impimp. You say you are a tenther. If you are, be a tenther ALL THE WAY, not just part of it.
No question. SCOTUS just made up 'gay marriage'. I see nothing in the Bill of Rights for gay marriage. Should have been a B.o.R. amendment.
Back in Prohibition times, they at least followed the B.o.R.
I am all for States’ Rights. States’ powers are all those not enumerated in the Constitution. The second is enumerated in the Constitution. How does that pave the way fo gay marriage again?
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.