Posted on 01/19/2003 8:38:00 PM PST by Richard-SIA
What we need is to get the 2nd Amendment incorporated by the Supreme Court as applying to the states. This legalistic incorporation trick the lawyers pulled with the Constitution's Amendments really ticks me off. The Bill of Rights as we call it, is supposed to apply to all citizens of this country, no questions asked.
By the way, what about the 7th Amendment? It has not been repealed and is still there. I know what it says, do you?
Amendment VIIIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by a jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Getting the 7th Amendment incorporated would really screw the liberal judges...
I am writing to ask for your support of bill HR1762, sponsored by Ron Paul (R-TX) and three other Republican members of Congress.
HR1762, the “Second Amendment Protection Act of 2001”, changes or repeals certain federal laws to avoid infringements on the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states as follows: “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.”
Specifically, HR1762, does the following:
1) Repeals Public Law 103-159, commonly known as the “Brady Bill”, which requires a background check on Americans before they purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. This law does little to prevent hardened criminals from acquiring firearms (one wonders why they were released from jail in the first place if they were so dangerous), and is an unnecessary harassment to the American people. The exercise of our 2nd amendment Rights should require no more of a background check than those required to exercise other Rights, some of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
2) Repeals Title XI of Public Law 103-322, commonly referred to as the “Assault Weapons Ban”, which bans the possession of certain types of semi-automatic rifles manufactured after 1994, and the possession of magazines that were manufactured after 1994 and are capable of containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Once again, this law infringes upon the 2nd amendment Rights of Americans. It is the moral and legal equivalent of banning certain types of printing presses simply because politicians don’t like their physical appearance. This law does nothing to prevent crime, and serves only to (once again) harass honest Americans.
3) Modifies Public Law 90-618 and Public Law 90-351, “by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes,' and `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes’ …. and ‘insert[ing] in lieu thereof `lawful purposes'.” Essentially, this transfers the regulation of certain firearms from an unelected official (the Secretary of the Treasury) to the elected Congress, and ensures that the definition of what constitutes a “sporting purpose” is not left up to the whim of the Secretary, since the phrase “sporting purpose” is simply replaced with the phrase “lawful purpose”.
Not only does this legislation take a step toward aligning federal law with the Bill of Rights, it will also free up the time of federal law enforcement officers to pursue more important things, such as threats to our nation from foreign powers.
It is the duty of all members of Congress to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”. This legislation does exactly that by repealing certain unconstitutional laws enacted by past Congresses, which not only infringed upon our 2nd amendment Rights, but also usurped the Constitutional method of changing the Bill of Rights.
This is what the 14th Amendment says, however only parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been incorporated as the result of 14th Amendment cases decided by the Supreme Court. It is incredulous, I agree. The legal profession has really given us a buggering on this with their doublespeak.
I am not a lawyer, but do remember my political science from college giving us these Machiavellian twists and turns concerning legislative and case law. The legal profession relies on perceived ambiguities (that is to say, what they want you to perceive or what they don't want you to know). I wish Chief Justice Renquist had a free hand in reforming the entire legal system after reading his book. He is a strict constructionist and believes the courts should not legislate.
The Left uses this case law and court decisions as a political tactic when they can't get what they want through the legitimate legislative process. Cases in point: the presidential fiasco with the Florida Supreme Court trying to steal the election for Algore; the Torriceli-Lautenburg ballot tampering in New Jersey; in Connecticut, a state supreme court ordering a state legislature to legislate some sort of "domestic partner" (homosexual marriage) law, etc.
Only Congress decides the jurisdiction of the lower courts. After 40 years of a Demo_Rat controlled House and Senate, there is much work to do. The Republicans had better fix this now they have the majority and the presidency to sign off on it.
Let me guess, the SC is the entity that does the choosing on which rights are incorporated.
Basically, we have the power to do this 'cuz we say we do.
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.