Are these really Ron Paul's Thoughts on the Chicago Gun Rights Case?

[bobbyw24]

I wrote briefly about the Congressional amicus curiae brief [pdf] in support of the petitioners in McDonald v. Chicago when it was submitted. We saw a great deal of support from both sides of the political spectrum, but one signature was notable for its glaring omission: Ron Paul.

I'd been wondering about that, and Howard Nemerov was able to get a statement from Dr. Paul's office:

Congressman Paul’s DC office said he didn’t sign the brief because he believes that it interferes with state’s rights, whose policies shouldn’t be dictated by the federal government.

Let's get a few things straight here, people. First off, states do not have rights. Like any other government, they have powers that are delegated to them by the people. Only people have rights.

Second, the 14th Amendment does not conflict with the 10th, and in no way does it interfere with the agendas of individual state governments.

Some background:

The 10th Amendment has undergone a bit of a renaissance over the last year. The Federal government has long been over-reaching with a rather loose reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Though the Renquist Court had long been keeping abuses of the clause in check, a schism took place in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich.

In Gonzales, the Court ruled that the cultivation of marijuana for personal, medical use was illegal under Federal law, even if it was legal under California law. Despite the fact that "commerce" was in no way involved, the Court found that the clause applied because of "the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market."

In his dissent, Justice Thomas lamented,

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.

The Gonzales decision was closely followed by the Court's disastrous reading of the Takings Clause in Kelo v. City of New London. Reaction to the Kelo verdict was swift, and a movement began to revive the ailing 10th Amendment.

I'm very supportive of the initiatives taken thus far. Dr. Paul deserves credit for his work in bringing attention to the issue. I agree with many of his positions.

But I can't understand how a man who calls himself a libertarian and a "Constitutionalist" opposes an originalist reading of the 14th Amendment.

The concern now, as it was in 1868, is that the 14th Amendment somehow violates the principles of federalism and stands in the way of self-determination for states. This is a stilted reading of the matter. As the Paragon Foundation brief [pdf] explained:

Federalism is central to this Republic and dearly important to amicus curiae. However, federalism is a shield for States against the federal government, not a sword for States against fundamental, individual rights. States cannot sacrifice those rights on the altar of federalism. p. 9

As Justice Brandeis wrote in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann,

To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

The 14th and 10th Amendments can coexist gracefully. States still have power to pursue their own economic and social policies, but by no sane interpretation can they infringe on the basic rights of citizens enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

This idea goes back to the framers. Madison believed that the federal government was ultimately responsible for the protection of our rights, even when the states failed in that regard. An early draft of the Bill of Rights had the passage, "no state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases."

In Federalist #51, he wrote,

It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were drafted to rectify such abuses. An Amendment guaranteeing liberty to all Americans fits right in with Madison's ideas.

Federalism did change a bit during Reconstruction, and I for one am not the least bit sorry that it did. We needed clearer, more specific protections of civil rights than were given by the Framers. Akhil Amar has pointed out that the contours of the 2nd Amendment (among other civil rights) changed between 1789 and 1868. It was an organic, logical evolution, to which I doubt any of the Framers would have objected.

Madison's proposal for a Bill of Rights stated,

In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this Constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

(…)

It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty.

The Constitution grants certain powers to the Federal government, which are clearly defined and should be narrow in interpretation. The remaining powers of government belong to the states, which are entitled to a great degree of sovereignty in their policies.

However, the ultimate sovereign in our system is the individual. Federalism stops where the Bill of Rights begins. The 14th Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities clause, is the guarantor of that idea.

Regardless of one's position in the libertarian spectrum, the ultimate idea is the same: when there is a confict between state interest and individual freedoms, the rights of the individual stand paramount.

Could someone please explain this to Ron Paul? I find it sad that Harry Reid, Arlen Spector and Olympia Snowe have shown more interest in civil rights than he has in this case.


http://lonelymachines.org/2009/12/07/still-a-ron-paul-fan/

[Epic]

RP is right - "libertarian centralism" is dangerous.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/011145.asp

[Pericles]

This is where the SCOTUS went wrong in taking a first amendment case and deciding that the constitution only applied to the federal government rather than sticking with the meaning of the amendment that CONGRESS shall make no law.

Does this mean that before the 14th Amendment there was no right against self incrimination for prosecution by a state?

That is the meaning of Article VI and the supremacy clause - no state can make a law that contradicts the US Constitution, nor can a state constitution contradict the US Constitution. Otherwise, the US Constitution is not the supreme law of the land.

[paulpwns]

This is where the SCOTUS went wrong in taking a first amendment case and deciding that the constitution only applied to the federal government rather than sticking with the meaning of the amendment that CONGRESS shall make no law.

Does this mean that before the 14th Amendment there was no right against self incrimination for prosecution by a state?

That is the meaning of Article VI and the supremacy clause - no state can make a law that contradicts the US Constitution, nor can a state constitution contradict the US Constitution. Otherwise, the US Constitution is not the supreme law of the land.

Yes, before the 14th amendment, there was no rights against the state. Sad but true.

[.Tom]

This is why I'm not in the "State's rights" camp.

Because if a State decides to lock me up for a victimless crime (which they do), then I can't just "leave" and go to another State.

What's the point of having a country if we don't all have equal rights?

We should all have the same rights or just abolish the federal government.

Also, States having rights is beyond oxymoronic. :)

[Baptist]

I believe that the Feds should make zero gun laws, but states can do whatever they want (include tell you that you can't own any). But every state constitution probably protects the right to bear arms.

[White Knight]

States or local governments can not ban guns period.

[nobody's_hero]

This is why I'm not in the "State's rights" camp.

Because if a State decides to lock me up for a victimless crime (which they do), then I can't just "leave" and go to another State.

What's the point of having a country if we don't all have equal rights?

We should all have the same rights or just abolish the federal government.

Also, States having rights is beyond oxymoronic. :)

Okay-okay. We're getting waaaay too semantical with the 'states' rights' comments.

We know that states do not have rights. But when people (including state legislators) feel as if something is being taken from them without their consent, they tend to get perturbed. As James Madison expressed in Federalist #51 (I think it was), the idea was to turn legislators against one another, so that ambition negates ambition and neither side is willing to give up their power. Basically, he said, "You two fight it out between yourselves, and I'm gonna go over here and enjoy my freedom." It's a clever tactic, but for far too long, the states haven't been willing to put up much of a stand. Madison's check-and-balance system fell apart, due to the complacency of the people, and now must be resurrected from the dead.

It doesn't matter what you have to call 'it' to rally the state legislators, just get them doing something to keep government as local (and accountable) as possible. If they turn out to be cowards in regards to this task, replace them.

We're drifting away from local government in this country (and too quickly toward the opposite), and if I have a choice between a globalist U.N. counselor banning my guns, or some pissant tin-pot mayor of No-where-ville, let it be the mayor.

At least I could run him/her out of town on a rail. ;)

[Cowlesy]

From listening to the Mike Church Show and Kevin Gutzman it sounds like if the SCOTUS rules in favor, it could set a precedent and open up many new cans of worms.

Apparently there is a big divide on this -- just haven't had time to read up on it.

[fisharmor]

It's a clever tactic, but for far too long, the states haven't been willing to put up much of a stand. Madison's check-and-balance system fell apart, due to the complacency of the people, and now must be resurrected from the dead.

The check-and-balance system is going to remain hopelessly broken, and it's not complacency directly - it's the 17th Amendment that's to blame. That is the one event that broke the system and allowed all of the problems of the 20th century.

Senators are supposed to be chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote. We all learned that the senate is supposed to represent the states: and it did, when they were chosen by the states.

Now, let's take a look at what the senate is responsible for on the federal level:

-Each state is supposed to get a disproportionate vote on killing bills. Even if something has popular support, small states looking out for their own interests have more power to vote down bills than large populous states. We were all told in civics class that this was the point, but it's not that way anymore, because of direct elections.

-Impeachments. Who gets rid of bad federal officials? It used to be the representatives of the states.

-Consent to treaties. Who rejects bad treaties? The states.

-Approving embassadors.

-Approving SCOTUS picks. Who is supposed to be responsible for tossing bad picks for SCOTUS? The STATES.

The last one is most germane, of course: SCOTUS justices aren't supposed to be chosen according to the Roe v. Wade dog-and-pony-show. They're supposed to be chosen according to how the states want the constitution "interpreted". And since the objective "interpretation" allows greater state power, then if the 17th didn't break the whole thing into pieces, we'd still have state power.

[TonySutton]

The check-and-balance system is going to remain hopelessly broken, and it's not complacency directly - it's the 17th Amendment that's to blame. That is the one event that broke the system and allowed all of the problems of the 20th century.



I couldn't agree more. As much as I would love to see the 16th repealed, I feel repealing the 17th is very important and Public Law 62-5 is a piece of garbage too.

A lot of bad changes occurred between 1910 and 1920 in this country.

[Krugerrand]

The check-and-balance system is going to remain hopelessly broken, and it's not complacency directly - it's the 17th Amendment that's to blame. That is the one event that broke the system and allowed all of the problems of the 20th century.

Senators are supposed to be chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote. We all learned that the senate is supposed to represent the states: and it did, when they were chosen by the states.

Now, let's take a look at what the senate is responsible for on the federal level:

-Each state is supposed to get a disproportionate vote on killing bills. Even if something has popular support, small states looking out for their own interests have more power to vote down bills than large populous states. We were all told in civics class that this was the point, but it's not that way anymore, because of direct elections.

-Impeachments. Who gets rid of bad federal officials? It used to be the representatives of the states.

-Consent to treaties. Who rejects bad treaties? The states.

-Approving embassadors.

-Approving SCOTUS picks. Who is supposed to be responsible for tossing bad picks for SCOTUS? The STATES.

The last one is most germane, of course: SCOTUS justices aren't supposed to be chosen according to the Roe v. Wade dog-and-pony-show. They're supposed to be chosen according to how the states want the constitution "interpreted". And since the objective "interpretation" allows greater state power, then if the 17th didn't break the whole thing into pieces, we'd still have state power.

#17 was a bad one.

[Juan McCain]

Okay-okay. We're getting waaaay too semantical with the 'states' rights' comments.



Point taken . . . as has been discussed here on RPF

The anti-federalism position is how one could describe Ron Paul's comments.

An anti-federalism argument makes good sense to me in most areas
(even when I -as one small person- do not personally agree on a particular issue).

Federalists in the District of Columbia really should NOT be involved
if California or other jurisdictions recognize the sick and want the decriminalization of cannabis,
or, if catholics in Iowa do not want the death penalty for moral reasons.

It is just not the Feds call on a local basis in many things, is my point.

[RM918]

If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the 2nd amendment is part of that, then I don't see how the states can regulate it anymore than they can the 1st amendment. If Paul disagrees with that, then I'm going to have to disagree with his stance on this particular issue.

[Pericles]

The check-and-balance system is going to remain hopelessly broken, and it's not complacency directly - it's the 17th Amendment that's to blame. That is the one event that broke the system and allowed all of the problems of the 20th century.

Senators are supposed to be chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote. We all learned that the senate is supposed to represent the states: and it did, when they were chosen by the states.

Now, let's take a look at what the senate is responsible for on the federal level:

-Each state is supposed to get a disproportionate vote on killing bills. Even if something has popular support, small states looking out for their own interests have more power to vote down bills than large populous states. We were all told in civics class that this was the point, but it's not that way anymore, because of direct elections.

-Impeachments. Who gets rid of bad federal officials? It used to be the representatives of the states.

-Consent to treaties. Who rejects bad treaties? The states.

-Approving embassadors.

-Approving SCOTUS picks. Who is supposed to be responsible for tossing bad picks for SCOTUS? The STATES.

The last one is most germane, of course: SCOTUS justices aren't supposed to be chosen according to the Roe v. Wade dog-and-pony-show. They're supposed to be chosen according to how the states want the constitution "interpreted". And since the objective "interpretation" allows greater state power, then if the 17th didn't break the whole thing into pieces, we'd still have state power.

This. and the way SCOTUS cases get interpreted is the real killer starting with Barron v. Baltimore (I really need to reread this one). IIRC, the real decision is that a state law can't be challenged first in a federal court, which has been construed to mean that the Constitution only applies to the actions of the federal government. Such a reading directly contradicts Article VI and language in the 10A "prohibited by it" that no law at any level may contradict the Constitution.

That realization is why the anti-federalists saw the BoR as vital. Rights had to be put in the supreme law of the land to prevent laws being put in place that could take those rights away and lead to tyranny.

[Pennsylvania]

natural law > states

Where states rights fail to aid the cause of freedom, states rights are null and void. I'd back the SCOTUS ruling 100%

OT: I couldn't help but notice the usual neocon radio personalities have made very little noise about this case. Why is that? All they ever talk about is Obama and healthcare. Rush was even ranting about Knut the polar bear, yet McDonald vs. Chicago wasn't worth spending a day or two on?

[GunnyFreedom]

Why can't we just take a plain reading of the text of the 1st and 2nd Amendments?

The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" which means simply that the US Congress shall make no law wrt religion or speech, period. This leaves it to the States to craft law about "yelling fire in a crowded theater" etc.

The 2nd Amendment says that the people "shall not be infringed." This clearly does NOT leave it up to the states, but by a clear reading of the actual text states that a person, by virtue of living under the system of government embodied by the United States, should have an expectation that his or her right to bear arms will be protected by the Federal Government against even State infringement.

I know that this is simply in "rumor" stage right now and there is no confirmation, but if this is Ron Paul's position, then this is the first place I have found in which I disagree with him. That won't affect my support for him, of course.

The bottom line is that a strict and literal reading of the 1st and 2nd Amendments make it CLEAR that the 1st Amendment reserves speech and religion to the States, while the 2nd Amendment quite specifically DOES NOT.

This does not have to be some general "all rights are Federal" or "all rights are State" nonsense. This is more about the plain, simple, clear reading of the actual text of the 2nd Amendment -- and according to that text, the Federal Government has every right to overrule the States in order to PROTECT the right to bear arms, but NOT to damage it, while the 10th Amendment makes it further clear that the States can overrule the Federal Government likewise only to protect the right to bear arms and not to destroy it.

[Bman]

Gunny for President!!!

When are you going to run for a federal chair?

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny for President!!!

When are you going to run for a federal chair?

LOL thanks, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to shoot for President lol

My goal is to serve 2-3 terms in State House before taking a shot at US Congress. There is some very important business that absolutely MUST be taken care of in the State house first. Redistricting being the most important one, followed by laying the legislative groundwork for a strong 10th Amendment position that will allow the State to pressure the Federal Government.

The only way to put energy behind a reform agenda at the Federal level, will be to use pressure from the States as leverage against the main body of Congress. That means, we will not be able to affect the kinds of reforms necessary in the US Congress until we have better than 25 States screaming for 10th Amendment nullification on one or more issues.

Once we have that, then a small minority in Congress can leverage that into moving the majority in our direction.

So I need to accomplish redistricting, which will be done in 2011, followed by laying a strong groundwork for nullification, which I hope to have done by 2014, but 2016 on the outside, and THEN I can take aim at a US Congressional seat. :D

[Juan McCain]

. . . then I don't see how the states can regulate it anymore than they can the 1st amendment.

It is the classic battle . . . this IS a very big case.

The Right to Bear Arms, as well as Freedom of Speech, does get regulated as you know.

So where to draw the line . . . and who (Feds or States) to be drawing any line.
It may be better to have a local municipality or state draw that line sometimes . . .
cannabis, death penalty, gun ownership . . . as being representative of the local will or interest of the people.
It is then still constitutional across the land - and up to a state.

The old guy who brought this case up IS just trying to protect himself in a tough neighborhood -
so yes, it is a bit surprising if this is RP's stance.

btw, Ron Paul has brought up that if citizens had the Right to Bear Arms on a jet plane . . .
then there probably could NOT have been a 9/11 attack on the WTC.
Responsible gun owner citizens could have saved the nation that catastrophe.
But RP caught alot of distortions by the media for saying that during the 2007-2008 campaign.

This case is different . . . but regarding plane travel -
like a saloon - and some long flights get to be like a saloon -
it just may be better to check your "heater" in at the door.

[Southron]

Gunny for President!!!

When are you going to run for a federal chair?

Hands off our State Representative.
:D

Have to say I agree with Ron again here. I am NOT a Nationalist libertarian like many here.

I also want to pose a theoretical question to those who support an anti-states ruling.

If a state refused to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in this instance, what would be the appropriate federal response? Military invasion?

[angelatc]

This is why I'm not in the "State's rights" camp.

Because if a State decides to lock me up for a victimless crime (which they do), then I can't just "leave" and go to another State.

Actually you can. Then both of those states have to agree before they extradite you.

[GunnyFreedom]

Hands off our State Representative.
:D

Have to say I agree with Ron again here. I am NOT a Nationalist libertarian like many here.

I also want to pose a theoretical question to those who support an anti-states ruling.

If a state refused to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in this instance, what would be the appropriate federal response? Military invasion?

Nor am I such a creature as a Nationalist Libertarian -- I am simply a strict Constitutionalist who sees the plain language of the 2nd Amendment as granting the Federal Government to protect the individual's natural right to bear arms against the potential State usurpation of it.

As to enforcement by military invasion? absolutely not, but ejection from the union with asylym for the citizens fleeing the rogue state, sure. 8-) The correct response for a State violating it's contractual obligation to the US Constitution, is ejection.

[Pericles]

Hands off our State Representative.
:D

Have to say I agree with Ron again here. I am NOT a Nationalist libertarian like many here.

I also want to pose a theoretical question to those who support an anti-states ruling.

If a state refused to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in this instance, what would be the appropriate federal response? Military invasion?

I notice that the "states rights" posters have ignored my reference to Article VI and the language in the 10A pertaining to powers prohibited to the states by the Constitution. As stated by Rawle, there is ample evidence that the BoR applies to the states without the use of the 14A, which did not exist when Rawle wrote his book, which was a standard work on the Constitution, used at various law schools, and West Point for instruction. Let's hear from you other than to say the 10A gives the states the power to nullify the 2A and ignore anything esle in the Constitution they don't like.

This instance or any instance? Options include nullification to be worked out in Congress, secession of the state, and lastly, Congress
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,

[Juan McCain]

. . .If a state refused to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in this instance,
what would be the appropriate federal response? Military invasion?

"Economic sanctions" . . . is what I guess would get threatened.

"Unconstitutional" practices in education like bus segregation got threatened with loss of money from the federal government . . .

A state doesn't want to follow a mandatory speed limit . . . that state loses some Federal highway funds.

[GunnyFreedom]

I notice that the "states rights" posters have ignored my reference to Article VI and the language in the 10A pertaining to powers prohibited to the states by the Constitution. As stated by Rawle, there is anple evidence that the BoR applies to the states without the use of the 14A, which did not exist when Rawle wrote his book, which was a standard work on the Constitution, used at various law schools, and West Point for instruction. Let's hear from you other than to sat the 10A gives the states the power to nullify the 2A and ignore anything esle in the Constitution they don't like.

This instance or any instance? Options include nullification to be worked out in Congress, secession of the state, and lastly, Congress
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,

See, that's what I'm talking about. My position has nothing to do with the 14th at all. Seriously, would the opposing position mean that the States have the power to unwarranted search and seizure? To compel a witness to testify against himself?

These amendments in the BoR are written such that they clear apply to all the people. NO PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law -- it doesn't say "regarding crimes of federal jurisdiction" or "in federal courts only" it says NO PERSON period.

[CMoore]

You all are right. This is truly a REALLY BIG DEAL. This is one of the biggest deals to come down in a long time. It is one that folks have been debating for a very long time and it is finally coming to a head. It is pretty exciting if you ask me.

I know that Ron Paul supports gun rights, so he is not coming from this out of a position of thinking that gun ownership should be restricted. But I think his position is tied up in this whole 10th Amendment thing that is going on now. It is that whole "interposition" and "nullification" thing. If I understand it correctly, a state has the right to "interpose" itself between its laws and the federal laws and "nullify" laws it thinks are unconstitutional. I think Ron Paul is in agreement with this. Others who are on board are folks like Roy Moore and John Eidsmoe and a host of others. In order for this to work, you have to accept the idea that federal laws are federal laws and state laws are state laws and that federal laws can't apply to the states. Otherwise, you have the whole supremacy of federal law over state law to deal with.

[The Patriot]

It seems pretty clear that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. The second amendment is pretty clear. It says it can't be abridged period, not just that the federal government can't abridge that right. Bottom line is, self defense is a natural right, protection from tyranny is a natural, and no state or federal government can abridge that right. The Founding Fathers recognized this. I don't view this as an encroachment on the powers of states, but rather a reaffirment of our natural rights. If rights are endowed by our creator/ or come from our existence than what right does any government have in taking them away?

[The Patriot]

I do believe that Illinois does have the right to secede. Freedom of association and freedom to separate is also a natural right. If they feel so strongly that they want to withdraw from the Constitution I support it. However, I would disapprove of say Illinois writing a new Constitution which limits firearm ownership.

[.Tom]

To all the Constitution worshipers who say that it's okay for the States to infringe on your free speech rights, but not okay for them to infringe on your gun rights, can you explain this logically?

I mean if they're both rights, and they are, then why is it okay for a State to infringe on them?

Because an old piece of paper says so?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Constitution is terrible, I'm just saying you're treating it like the particular wording somehow dictates our rights. (i.e. "congress shall make no law" vs "shall not be infringed")

Who cares how they worded it? Either you believe in these rights or you don't. You act like the founders somehow created rights.

[ARealConservative]

Why can't we just take a plain reading of the text of the 1st and 2nd Amendments?

because states were already infringing on gun rights when they agreed to the constitution, and nobody originally understood the document would strip states of this power they already had.

Original intent trumps the "plain 'ol text" defense everytime.

[fisharmor]

Who cares how they worded it? Either you believe in these rights or you don't. You act like the founders somehow created rights.


Original intent trumps the "plain 'ol text" defense everytime.

I disagree. Ok, so I'm beginning to see that law and the state are unnecessary to begin with, which I suspect is where Tom is coming from... but if you're "a real conservative" then how can you make a statement like that and expect it to be in line with the Rule of Law?

If the document doesn't say what it says, then you're no different from activist judges. If it does say what it says, then I'm perfectly comfortable either beating you over the head with it, or listening to convincing arguments that what it says isn't the way we want to do things, and helping you push for a change.

But if we're going to just ignore the letters, we may as well not even have it. Which is one BIG reason why I'm wandering down the ancap path recently.


The 2nd Amendment says that the people "shall not be infringed."

This is that dreaded passive voice that clippy was always yelling at us about in the 90's versions of MS Office. Grammar checkers don't like it because you can't tell who the subject is - but that is precisely the point in the 2nd. You're not meant to know who the subject is; you're only meant to know that no matter who it is, that subject shall not infringe your right to keep and bear arms.

[ARealConservative]

I disagree. Ok, so I'm beginning to see that law and the state are unnecessary to begin with, which I suspect is where Tom is coming from... but if you're "a real conservative" then how can you make a statement like that and expect it to be in line with the Rule of Law?

If the document doesn't say what it says, then you're no different from activist judges. If it does say what it says, then I'm perfectly comfortable either beating you over the head with it, or listening to convincing arguments that what it says isn't the way we want to do things, and helping you push for a change.

But if we're going to just ignore the letters, we may as well not even have it. Which is one BIG reason why I'm wandering down the ancap path recently.



This is that dreaded passive voice that clippy was always yelling at us about in the 90's versions of MS Office. Grammar checkers don't like it because you can't tell who the subject is - but that is precisely the point in the 2nd. You're not meant to know who the subject is; you're only meant to know that no matter who it is, that subject shall not infringe your right to keep and bear arms.


Original intent is the purest way to uphold contractual law. The meaning of words do change over time, so the original intent and/or understanding of that contract should always carry more weight then what words mean at the current place in time.

If the people that originally agreed with the contract allowed for states to infringe – such as for mentally deranged individuals – who are you to come around and say the contract should be viewed differently now?

[Pericles]

Original intent is the purest way to uphold contractual law. The meaning of words do change over time, so the original intent and/or understanding of that contract should always carry more weight then what words mean at the current place in time.

If the people that originally agreed with the contract allowed for states to infringe – such as for mentally deranged individuals – who are you to come around and say the contract should be viewed differently now?

OK, so riddle me this - explain the original intent of this language of Article VI:

"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 notwith-standing.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "

Next question: Do Constitutional amendments have the same authority as the original text of the Constitution?

[ARealConservative]

OK, so riddle me this - explain the original intent of this language of Article VI:

"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 notwith-standing.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "

Next question: Do Constitutional amendments have the same authority as the original text of the Constitution?

Explain how it is that the very same states that ratified the constitution had laws on the books for decades that curtailed gun rights.

Is your argument that they simply didn't understand the constitution and it took centuries of reconstruction to determine the truth?

Is that the rule of law I am supposed to embrace?

[.Tom]

Original intent is the purest way to uphold contractual law. The meaning of words do change over time, so the original intent and/or understanding of that contract should always carry more weight then what words mean at the current place in time.

If the people that originally agreed with the contract allowed for states to infringe – such as for mentally deranged individuals – who are you to come around and say the contract should be viewed differently now?

LOL.

How the hell is the Constitution a contract? No one alive today even signed it. A contract by definition has to be agreed upon by the parties it affects.

[Pericles]

Explain how it is that the very same states that ratified the constitution had laws on the books for decades that curtailed gun rights.

Is your argument that they simply didn't understand the constitution and it took centuries of reconstruction to determine the truth?

Is that the rule of law I am supposed to embrace?

Thanks for not answering my questions, but I will answer yours;

State courts have overturned state laws that they found in conflict with the Constitution, and did so frequently in the early 19th Century - a couple of examples:

Nunn v. State of Georgia (1846) the Georgia supreme court ruled:

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.

Cockrum v. Texas (1859)

"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."

State courts are using the BoR to strike down state laws they find to be in conflict with the Constitution. The only authority they have to do so is in Article VI.

[ARealConservative]

Thanks for not answering my questions, but I will answer yours;

State courts have overturned state laws that they found in conflict with the Constitution, and did so frequently in the early 19th Century - a couple of examples:

Nunn v. State of Georgia (1846) the Georgia supreme court ruled:

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.

Cockrum v. Texas (1859)

"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."

State courts are using the BoR to strike down state laws they find to be in conflict with the Constitution. The only authority they have to do so is in Article VI.

You do realize your examples date an entire generation after ratification, which makes it reconstruction.

[Pericles]

You do realize your examples date an entire generation after ratification, which makes it reconstruction.

At least I have examples, ranging from Washington's first choice of Attorney General of the US, to state court cases.

[Son of Detroit]

What were to happen if a state were to say confiscate all firearms and send people to concentration camps? Then block off the border so you couldn't just go to another state?

States do not have rights. Let alone the power to infringe upon your natural rights given to you by your creator.

[amy31416]

Quite frankly, this debate makes my brain want to implode, but it's certainly an interesting one.

It seems to me as if it's a battle between natural rights/2nd Amendment being protected and the 10th Amendment/rights of communities that has come to a head.

This is a tough one for me, but I am leaning toward protecting the individual's rights over a community's rights, yet I understand the implication that may have for state's right's. ARGH!

Well, here's Jack Hunter's take on it:

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

[Promontorium]

No. Regardless of how you want the government to run (or how it is running), the constitution makes it clear that it is the supreme law.

The problem is, while no one questioned the laws imposed, the statutes imposed, for whatever reason, the rights listed, that instead established a set of laws against government, have been derailed for 200 years.

But like the lawyer in this case, I don't care if the rights are in the Constitution or not, they are rights, regardless. No human or government is morally justified in controlling my live, liberty, property, without a just cause.

The states have no authority to destroy these rights, as England had no authority to do so.

This isn't semantics. And this is where I've never agreed with Ron Paul. I just decided if were both working to cripple the big beast, it won't be so hard to take down the little beasts later on, even without his help.

I find this "national libertarian" concept absurd. A true libertarian shouldn't have one drop of sentimentality for a tyrannical state. Some of you here think your state should be able to ban guns completely under the guise that you can move elsewhere. That is a defeatist position, not a position of rationality.

The purpose of government is to secure rights. Not destroy them. And to grant states the authority to destroy liberty, believing 'you can go somewhere else if you don't like it' is the opinion of the tyrant. That state which destroys liberty has no right to exist. And I mean that universally. The idea that an absolute police state could exist as a subset of the United States, and folow the Constitution is a mockery of this nation.

It is as others said, this nation would mean absolutely nothing if its states could so thoroughly ignore the rule of law, and the necessity for individual rights. America should be destroyed before such states could exist.

Libertarianism doesn't stem from patriotism. There's no American flag or Kentucky flag, or Texas flag embedded in that word. It would more likely be anti-flag, and globalist, than anti-federalist.

Individual > everything else <---- that is libertarianism.

I do not wish to deride your views, but they are not libertarian views by any standard. This belief of the sacred nature of your home state has nothing to do with individualism. This idea that the federal government exists to allow for a pocket of absolute social control if a tryannical majority so desires, is the antithesis of America's founding.

America itself was a pocket of unjust laws in an overall empire. Certainly, from a localist point of view, the tyranny came from the top, not the middle government, but from an individualist perspective, a libertarian perspective, it's all government. And locality is not a justifier for tyranny.

I suppose, if you made a nation, with 3 people, that would be far more local than your states. If then two of the 3 voted to enslave the third, that would be ok, because it's local? What if the 3 joined a federation of 12, and the 3 had state authority, now are they justified to enslave each other? What if there were 3 tiers, and the middle one voted to enslave everyone below them, now is it justified?

The tiers of government are for practical purposes, stemming from moral goals of just law. They do not exist as a platform to destroy individual rights. No state in this country has any moral claim to take your guns, to deny you free speech, to tell you what religion is authorized.


Your rights are inalienable, which isn't defined as "only federal congress can't take them from you".

[Southron]

What were to happen if a state were to say confiscate all firearms and send people to concentration camps? Then block off the border so you couldn't just go to another state?

States do not have rights. Let alone the power to infringe upon your natural rights given to you by your creator.

Most of us here are not arguing that states should be tyrannical, but rather the federal government should not have the power and authority to prevent them from being so.

Much like Iran. I don't agree with its government but I don't think I should have much say in what they choose.

Even if I could agree that the US constitution should apply to the states I'm still worried about giving more power to the Supreme Court-as if it doesn't have enough already.

Incorporation will probably happen. But what is going to happen if the court makeup changes?

[low preference guy]

I believe that states should be allowed to ban guns. The second amendment applies only to the Federal Government

It's kind of contradictory to say that one should go to the state legislators to protect one's freedom to gamble, and then to Washington to lobby for a first amendment issue, like say, state election campaign financing. It doesn't make sense. The states will not be experiments of democracy under this interpretation.

[Pericles]

Most of us here are not arguing that states should be tyrannical, but rather the federal government should not have the power and authority to prevent them from being so.

Much like Iran. I don't agree with its government but I don't think I should have much say in what they choose.

Even if I could agree that the US constitution should apply to the states I'm still worried about giving more power to the Supreme Court-as if it doesn't have enough already.

Incorporation will probably happen. But what is going to happen if the court makeup changes?

I understand your concerns and agree they are of vital importance, however, to state that the Constitution is only to restrain the federal government is only to parrot the line from high school history about the importance of Barron v. Baltimore. Why would a document designed to restrict the federal government only have this language in it?

Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters
of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but
gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any
Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties
on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing
its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by
any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the
United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control
of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep
Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
These are clearly restrictions on the states, which the states must obey under Article VI. Even the 10A clearly says that the restrictions placed on the states by the Constitution remain in force. It is any restriction not to be found in the Constitution that remains the purview of the state or the people.

One of our real problems is that we have a situation in which the Constitution now means whatever 5 justices on the SCOTUS says it does. 4 of the current justices are OK with that, and currently 5 are not. When a majority are OK with that idea, it is over for liberty.

Oddly, the 5 realize this, and that is why I think they have this slavish obsession with precedent, even to the extent of keeping bad decisions, because they think it the only real restraint on the "living Constitution" camp.

The last paragraph in Barron v. Baltimore is telling -

"THIS cause came on to be heard, on the transcript of the record from the court of appeals for the western shore of the state of Maryland, and was argued by counsel: On consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of that state, and the constitution of the United States; whereupon, it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that this writ of error be and the same is hereby dismissed, for the want of jurisdiction. "

Despite the SCOTUS claiming that the 5A applied only to the Federal government, it found the acts of Maryland constitutional because nothing in them were contrary to the Constitution. If something was contrary, would the court then have jurisdiction?

Reading the 19th century SCOTUS decisions, it seems they did not give cases the level of review that they now get for their implications in Constitutional law. They decide the case, and then everybody has to figure out what it means ..

[Pericles]

I believe that states should be allowed to ban guns. The second amendment applies only to the Federal Government

It's kind of contradictory to say that one should go to the state legislators to protect one's freedom to gamble, and then to Washington to lobby for a first amendment issue, like say, state election campaign financing. It doesn't make sense. The states will not be experiments of democracy under this interpretation.

The difference is that freedom to gamble is not mentioned as a right of the people in the supreme law of the land. RKBA is.

[.Tom]

Quite frankly, this debate makes my brain want to implode, but it's certainly an interesting one.

It seems to me as if it's a battle between natural rights/2nd Amendment being protected and the 10th Amendment/rights of communities that has come to a head.

This is a tough one for me, but I am leaning toward protecting the individual's rights over a community's rights, yet I understand the implication that may have for state's right's. ARGH!

Well, here's Jack Hunter's take on it:

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

That video really got my gears grinding.

Especially the part where he had an absolute hard on for States regulating firearms.

He didn't just say leave it to the States and work towards abolishing it there, he actually ENDORSED the States regulating guns, as in he WANTED them too.

He said something like "If States don't regulate guns, who will keep the retards, crazies, and children from having them?

Well I have something to say to you Mr. Statist.

Why the hell would you trust the State (the most violent, evil, immoral institution in all of history) to determine if you're a "retard" or "insane" or a "child"?

From now on people, please stop making arguments based on the Constitution. It's contrary to logic, something I thought this board was about.

I'll even quote your god Jefferson for those who still aren't convinced.

"Law is often but the tyrant's will."

[ARealConservative]

LOL.

How the hell is the Constitution a contract? No one alive today even signed it. A contract by definition has to be agreed upon by the parties it affects.

like it or not, it is a binding contract. I wouldn't suggest you put your ass on the line to test that premise either.

[ARealConservative]

At least I have examples, ranging from Washington's first choice of Attorney General of the US, to state court cases.

countless examples exist of states infringing on gun rights for decades after ratification.

[ARealConservative]

Quite frankly, this debate makes my brain want to implode, but it's certainly an interesting one.

It seems to me as if it's a battle between natural rights/2nd Amendment being protected and the 10th Amendment/rights of communities that has come to a head.

This is a tough one for me, but I am leaning toward protecting the individual's rights over a community's rights, yet I understand the implication that may have for state's right's. ARGH!

Well, here's Jack Hunter's take on it:

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

individual rights will never be protected if the community doesn't wish to protect them.

So I'm siding with granting powers to local governments knowing that rights will not be protected without them.

[ARealConservative]

No. Regardless of how you want the government to run (or how it is running), the constitution makes it clear that it is the supreme law.

The problem is, while no one questioned the laws imposed, the statutes imposed, for whatever reason, the rights listed, that instead established a set of laws against government, have been derailed for 200 years.

But like the lawyer in this case, I don't care if the rights are in the Constitution or not, they are rights, regardless. No human or government is morally justified in controlling my live, liberty, property, without a just cause.

The states have no authority to destroy these rights, as England had no authority to do so.

This isn't semantics. And this is where I've never agreed with Ron Paul. I just decided if were both working to cripple the big beast, it won't be so hard to take down the little beasts later on, even without his help.

I find this "national libertarian" concept absurd. A true libertarian shouldn't have one drop of sentimentality for a tyrannical state. Some of you here think your state should be able to ban guns completely under the guise that you can move elsewhere. That is a defeatist position, not a position of rationality.

The purpose of government is to secure rights. Not destroy them. And to grant states the authority to destroy liberty, believing 'you can go somewhere else if you don't like it' is the opinion of the tyrant. That state which destroys liberty has no right to exist. And I mean that universally. The idea that an absolute police state could exist as a subset of the United States, and folow the Constitution is a mockery of this nation.

It is as others said, this nation would mean absolutely nothing if its states could so thoroughly ignore the rule of law, and the necessity for individual rights. America should be destroyed before such states could exist.

Libertarianism doesn't stem from patriotism. There's no American flag or Kentucky flag, or Texas flag embedded in that word. It would more likely be anti-flag, and globalist, than anti-federalist.

Individual > everything else <---- that is libertarianism.

I do not wish to deride your views, but they are not libertarian views by any standard. This belief of the sacred nature of your home state has nothing to do with individualism. This idea that the federal government exists to allow for a pocket of absolute social control if a tryannical majority so desires, is the antithesis of America's founding.

America itself was a pocket of unjust laws in an overall empire. Certainly, from a localist point of view, the tyranny came from the top, not the middle government, but from an individualist perspective, a libertarian perspective, it's all government. And locality is not a justifier for tyranny.

I suppose, if you made a nation, with 3 people, that would be far more local than your states. If then two of the 3 voted to enslave the third, that would be ok, because it's local? What if the 3 joined a federation of 12, and the 3 had state authority, now are they justified to enslave each other? What if there were 3 tiers, and the middle one voted to enslave everyone below them, now is it justified?

The tiers of government are for practical purposes, stemming from moral goals of just law. They do not exist as a platform to destroy individual rights. No state in this country has any moral claim to take your guns, to deny you free speech, to tell you what religion is authorized.


Your rights are inalienable, which isn't defined as "only federal congress can't take them from you".

your rights don't mean shit if nobody wants to protect them.

So your views are illogical. You setup a libertarian utopia where you have full rights, but nobody is interested in defending such a utopia. So who is actually going to protect these rights for you?

no one will.

unprotected rights are useless, thus so are your political views.

[jmdrake]

For all of those who think states rights are the ultimate guarantee of freedom, see this @ about 4:30

YouTube - Debra Medina on Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dmx92TFv-g#t=4m30s)

"But if the government of Texas as it now stands were to remove itself from the union, wouldn't the Texas state government become the oppressor of freedom that the federal government now is?"

Also note, the second amendment does not mention congress! The first amendment says "congress shall pass no law"... The second amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There's no need for incorporation under the 14th amendment since the 2nd amendment was not limited to the federal government like the first amendment was. States rights have their place, but they are not the end all be all of everything.

[Pericles]

countless examples exist of states infringing on gun rights for decades after ratification.

Then it should be very easy for you to list 5 of them that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the passage of the Militia Act of 1792, otherwise I have to conclude that you are wasting my time, as you have yet to answer any question posed to you.

[Bucjason]

Totally agree with Tom.

I am born with my rights ,and they are protected against ALL governments equally.

You people who would put state's rights ahead of individual natural rights make me SICK.
Yes, state's are sovereign and make up our nation, but the IDIVIDUAL is sovereign also , and makes up the State. If a local government is allowed to infringe on my individual sovereignty , what good is it if the Federal government can't ?? It matters NOT ! It allows for tyranny.

If the authors of the constitition didn't realize this , then they were morons , and we have the right to correct it. ( 14th amendment) Something tells me if Thomas Jefferson was at the convention, and not in Paris at the time , would have taken care of this to begin with . His understanding of natural rights was impeccable:

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals."
-Thomas Jefferson

"[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights."
-Thomas Jefferson

States rights do not trump individual rights . PERIOD !

[Bucjason]

Listen to what the Judge has to say about this topic

At 2 minutes starts the section that pertains to incorporation
YouTube - Judge Napolitano on Gun Rights.mpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE)

[ARealConservative]

Then it should be very easy for you to list 5 of them that existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the passage of the Militia Act of 1792, otherwise I have to conclude that you are wasting my time, as you have yet to answer any question posed to you.

You think it’s easy to link to local laws from periods prior to 1790?

Cookoo. Cookoo.

Look, it comes down to this. Do you think people allowed convicted criminals and mentally insane people, and children known to throw temper tantrums to have guns?

If you want to ignore some common sense, then you are wasting everyone’s time. Only nut jobs agree with allowing insane people to carry guns, and contrary to your misguided views, the country was not founded by nut jobs.

[.Tom]

^ How do you determine if someone is "insane"? Based on the fact that they see the world different than you?

No one has the right to deny someone their rights because they consider them to be "insane".

[johnrocks]

Well I disagree with him. My rights nor anyone else should have their rights taken by any government or majority rule.

[ARealConservative]

^ How do you determine if someone is "insane"? Based on the fact that they see the world different than you?

No one has the right to deny someone their rights because they consider them to be "insane".

It is totally arbitrary and based on the view of your peers.

How do you decide what is child abuse and what is just solid parenting? Arbitrary based on the views of your peers.

So do you want your peers to be people living near you, or do you want to it be based on 300 million living in an enormous geographical region that share little in common with you?

[Imperial]

You have to remember that the this isn't based on the Due-Process clause according to Gura's argument, the leader of the better libertarian defense team. His defense, although including due process, primarily focuses on overturning the slaughterhouse cases and getting "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United" back into usable form... an important check on the potential of state tyranny.

I don't think states' rights are really viable if you do not have the slaughterhouse cases overturned. It makes the states supreme over the federal governemt, when really no branch should have absolute power over another.

[teamrican1]

You have to remember that the this isn't based on the Due-Process clause according to Gura's argument, the leader of the better libertarian defense team. His defense, although including due process, primarily focuses on overturning the slaughterhouse cases and getting "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United" back into usable form... an important check on the potential of state tyranny.


I understand his argument. I just think it's pure folly to believe the Federal Government would use this newfound power to "protect" our rights rather than assault. The virtue of State's Rights is that it is a mechanism of devolution. I'm not going to stand around and let my State Government oppress me. They'll need to be fought with just as much vigor as we currently fight the Feds. But as they are far less powerful and dangerous, they make for a less daunting enemy. Nationalist Libertarians are living in a fantasy world. The best path to liberty is found in nullification, interposition and natural law. Agree with Dr. Paul's position 100%.

[Bucjason]

I'm not going to stand around and let my State Government oppress me. They'll need to be fought with just as much vigor as we currently fight the Feds. But as they are far less powerful and dangerous, they make for a less daunting enemy.

HA ! Tell that to a liberty lover living in California .

I think it's folly to think state government is any less crooked or dangerous than the Feds. Especially when you grant them all the powers of a sovereign nation seperate from the Bill of Rights.( which states-rights advocates seem to want)- they then BECOME thier OWN federal government, ruling over all the counties in your state. They have all the same abilities to oppress, the same possibilities of tyranny by the majority, with none of the same safegaurds to protect the minority .

I don't see how incorporating the Bill of Rights does anything besides add an extra safegaurd to our liberties. Why would anyone who values thier rights even oppose the idea?? Because it wasn't part of the original constitutional agreement ?? Who cares?? Slavery was permitted by the originial agreement also. We have the right to fix the flaws and strive for a "more perfect union"

[erowe1]

I don't see how incorporating the Bill of Rights does anything besides add an extra safegaurd to our liberties. Why would anyone who values thier rights even oppose the idea?? Because it wasn't part of the original constitutional agreement ?? Who cares?? Slavery was permitted by the originial agreement also. We have the right to fix the flaws and strive for a "more perfect union"

Would you also favor a global constitution incorporating the Bill of Rights for the entire world, and authorizing the central global government (or perhaps just the US federal government) to intervene in places where rights are being infringed by local ruling regimes?

[Bucjason]

Would you also favor a global constitution incorporating the Bill of Rights for the entire world, and authorizing the central global government (or perhaps just the US federal government) to intervene in places where rights are being infringed by local ruling regimes?

Sure why not?

If governments only enumerated power is in the protection of our indivudual natural rights , and we are granted proper representation in said government, does it really matter thier locality ??


Not gonna happen anyways , and it's an unrealistic idea. What we CAN control is our OWN society, who has already entered into a compact together , and already expect such rights.

If you value natural HUMAN rights over state's rights, I think you'll agree.

P.S. = I am not claiming the U.S. should police the world against all rights violations...just protect the equal rights of all it's OWN citizens , who have willingly gave thier consent and entered into a compact together under the principles put forth when we declared our Independence.

[Knightskye]

I look at it as state governments don't have the right to restrict the free flow of speech, likewise they don't have the right to restrict the ownership or use of guns.

[RedStripe]

One of the biggest misconceptions I keep seeing repeated is the idea that if the Constitution (e.g. the 14th amendment) prohibits state governments from passing certain legislation, that would somehow require or entail 'federal intervention' into state affairs. No, it wouldn't. It just means that the law is going to be declared unconstitutional and the state courts won't uphold it. No federal laws or federal agents involved at all.

[ARealConservative]

One of the biggest misconceptions I keep seeing repeated is the idea that if the Constitution (e.g. the 14th amendment) prohibits state governments from passing certain legislation, that would somehow require or entail 'federal intervention' into state affairs. No, it wouldn't. It just means that the law is going to be declared unconstitutional and the state courts won't uphold it. No federal laws or federal agents involved at all.

it is intervention by its very nature. You are having a larger governing body intervene in the wishes of a smaller governing body.

[RedStripe]

it is intervention by its very nature. You are having a larger governing body intervene in the wishes of a smaller governing body.

It's really not. The Supreme Court isn't "intervening" by interpreting the 14th amendment. It's simply telling the state - hey, what you just did is contrary to the contract (constitution) between you and the federal government. Someone has to interpret the constitution!

The supreme court is, within the legal hierarchy, the final word on what the constitution says. State supreme courts, however, obviously have the final word on what their constitutions say. When a state violates the federal constitution, perhaps by violating section 2 of Article IV, the Supreme Court declares their action unconstitutional. That's not intervention by the federal government in any meaningful sense.