PDA

View Full Version : I've thought long and hard. I support the Chicago Gun Ban....




Pages : [1] 2

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 09:55 AM
being upheld by the SCOTUS.

Jack makes this argument as well.
YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

I want to lose a few battles (this one can be won through elections) to win our overall war.

Gray Seal
03-05-2010, 10:08 AM
Do you think the 14th amendment should be amended out of the Constitution?

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 10:09 AM
I don't. See @ 4:30.

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

Also the SA totally leaves out of his analysis the fact that the 2nd amendment doesn't include the words "congress shall make no law". That phrase is what clearly identifies the 1st amendment as applying to the federal government exclusively. And I'm not a states rights purist like SA.

Rael
03-05-2010, 10:16 AM
Sorry but states don't have the right to ignore the constitution. This isn't a states rights issue...the state is not nullifying a law, they are nullifying the constitution itself.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 10:20 AM
It is a states issue. States and cities can make whatever laws they want. In fact, you can have a state religion.

If you allow the SCOTUS to overturn the Chicago law you are allowing the Federal government precedent where the Feds can say their gun laws are not going to be allowed for nullification by the states.

Agorism
03-05-2010, 10:26 AM
Incorporation applies all amendments to the states as well. If it applies to the Federal government then it also applies to the states.

That was the whole point of the 14 amendment.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 10:26 AM
It is a states issue. States and cities can make whatever laws they want. In fact, you can have a state religion.

If you allow the SCOTUS to overturn the Chicago law you are allowing the Federal government precedent where the Feds can say their gun laws are not going to be allowed for nullification by the states.

I would suggest reading Article VI of the US Constitution.

Dr.3D
03-05-2010, 10:29 AM
It is a states issue. States and cities can make whatever laws they want. In fact, you can have a state religion.

If you allow the SCOTUS to overturn the Chicago law you are allowing the Federal government precedent where the Feds can say their gun laws are not going to be allowed for nullification by the states.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What you are saying is that the states can deny you due process when it comes to what is constitutionally required.

This of course would allow states to override the constitution on everything else and thus they could do anything they wanted, including searching your home without a search warrant.

Tapping your phone without a warrant.
They could lock you up without a trial and keep you there indefinitely.

All states have to follow the constitution of the United States or there would be chaos. There would be no country wide standard by which people could count on having justice of any kind.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 10:33 AM
So you are telling me that if the federal government places a ban on certain guns or bullets you will stand with the Federal Govt. over the states authority to overturn?

Baptist
03-05-2010, 10:36 AM
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What you are saying is that the states can deny you due process when it comes to what is constitutionally required.

This of course would allow states to override the constitution on everything else and thus they could do anything they wanted, including searching your home without a search warrant.

Tapping your phone without a warrant.
They could lock you up without a trial and keep you there indefinitely.

All states have to follow the constitution of the United States or there would be chaos. There would be no country wide standard by which people could count on having justice of any kind.

Bill of Rights wasn't applied to the states until the 1920s. Guess it was just mass chaos before then, eh?

Endgame
03-05-2010, 10:37 AM
Think harder. Do you support state's rights to institute a system of slavery?

I only support decentralization now because the established federal government is tyrannical. Its only a crude means to an end. I realize that local governments in some parts of the country would become worse if they were given complete sovereignty and that's a problem. If we had a global government supporting a global individual right to bear arms and every other individual right I consider valid, I would support that.

Baptist
03-05-2010, 10:37 AM
Incorporation applies all amendments to the states as well. If it applies to the Federal government then it also applies to the states.

That was the whole point of the 14 amendment.

No, the Supreme Court didn't rule until the 1920s that the 14th Amendment applies to the states. And even then, the Court said that only SOME of the Bill of Rights applied to the states, and that from here on out (1920s forward), the Court would decide which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states and which don't. So if you're a fan of what we know as incorporation, then you/re basically saying that the ultimate and final authority in our land is the opinions of nine people.

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 10:38 AM
It is a states issue. States and cities can make whatever laws they want. In fact, you can have a state religion.

If you allow the SCOTUS to overturn the Chicago law you are allowing the Federal government precedent where the Feds can say their gun laws are not going to be allowed for nullification by the states.

Apples and oranges. There's already plenty of precedent for federal law trumping state law so this ruling would have no effect there one way or the other. Also this isn't a case of the supreme court saying "You can't have this gun law because there is a federal gun law on the books." Rather it's "You can't have this gun law because the 2nd amendment precludes it."

And "if you allow the SCOTUS"? What do you mean by that? They are the SCOTUS. They'll do what they want.

States rights purism isn't the way forward against federal tyranny. Again see the Judge Napolitano clip I posted @ 4:30.

angelatc
03-05-2010, 10:38 AM
So you are telling me that if the federal government places a ban on certain guns or bullets you will stand with the Federal Govt. over the states authority to overturn?

Only if they amend the Constitution. Otherwise they have no authority to make that law.

A right isn't a right if any judicial body can take it away.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms...." - which people, exactly, are they referring to? The people of D.C. and only DC?

I tend to disagree with anybody who ends an argument with "clearly some level of government is necessary."

And, like was mentioned above, the 14th Amendment means the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

Baptist
03-05-2010, 10:40 AM
Think harder. Do you support state's rights to institute a system of slavery?



State's rights presents problems, but fewer problems than a tyrannical federal (or regional or global) power. You have the hope of escaping one state to another, which is harder when federal and impossible when global. Don't forget that the main reason slavery existed is because of the federal government, anyway.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 10:40 AM
Southern Avenger is wrong about a lot of things.

1. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States DOES NOT INCREASE the power of the federal government! All it does is restrict the power of the states. This interpretation of the constitution will be enforced in state courts! There is no new power of congress involved! DUH!

2. "The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights but a list of things the Federal Government could not do to the states" WRONG. Just read the damn things! Half of it deals with the procedural rights of criminal defendants! It says nothing about what the Federal Government cannot "do" to the states (besides the catchall 10th) - it's about the rights of individuals as against the Federal Government.

Haha, he even says how the right to freedom of religion is something the federal government cannot take away from the STATES. What a moron, it's clearly a prohibition against the federal government regulating/instituting religion - it says nothing whatsoever of the powers of state government (which are defined in their own constitutions).

Seriously there is just so much wrong with this guy's analysis. He really needs to take a class on constitutional law.

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 10:40 AM
So you are telling me that if the federal government places a ban on certain guns or bullets you will stand with the Federal Govt. over the states authority to overturn?

The 2nd amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does NOT say that the states shall not infringe that right or that the federal government shall not infringe the right, but rather the right shall not be infringed. I'm not sure why that's not clear to people. Clearly the states have a right to nullify laws that aren't constitutional to begin with.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 10:46 AM
The 2nd amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does NOT say that the states shall not infringe that right or that the federal government shall not infringe the right, but rather the right shall not be infringed. I'm not sure why that's not clear to people. Clearly the states have a right to nullify laws that aren't constitutional to begin with.

Yea and besides, the 14th Amendment, via "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." was intended by congressional drafters to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. So even if the 2nd Amendment, in the context of the other Amendments and it's drafting history, was not originally applicable to the states it sure as hell should be now.

Rael
03-05-2010, 10:47 AM
It is a states issue. States and cities can make whatever laws they want. In fact, you can have a state religion.

If you allow the SCOTUS to overturn the Chicago law you are allowing the Federal government precedent where the Feds can say their gun laws are not going to be allowed for nullification by the states.

I'm not saying states shouldn't be able to nullify statutory laws. But they should not be able to nullify the constitution itself.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 10:50 AM
You guys are missing the point of the Chicago Gun law. It bans hand guns. Not rifles or shotguns. It's a dumb law. Also, this should not be at the federal level anyway.

Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22 Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

This thread has pointed out many in this movement talk like they'd prefer no 10th amendment and are against State's rights.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 10:58 AM
You guys are missing the point of the Chicago Gun law. It bans hand guns. Not rifles or shotguns. It's a dumb law. Also, this should not be at the federal level anyway.

Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22 Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

This thread has pointed out many in this movement talk like they'd prefer no 10th amendment and are against State's rights.

Yea it's a dumb law that violates the U.S. Constitution and I'm glad the Supreme Court struck it down. Congress didn't get any additional power because of the ruling. The authority of the federal government did not increase. The authority of state governments did, however, decrease. And we should be happy about that.

State's rights shouldn't be supported for their own sake - they should be supported because of some deeper ideological reason. I've yet to see a good reason to unequivocally support maximizing state government power.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 11:05 AM
Yea it's a dumb law that violates the U.S. Constitution and I'm glad the Supreme Court struck it down. Congress didn't get any additional power because of the ruling. The authority of the federal government did not increase. The authority of state governments did, however, decrease. And we should be happy about that.

State's rights shouldn't be supported for their own sake - they should be supported because of some deeper ideological reason. I've yet to see a good reason to unequivocally support maximizing state government power.

You haven't?

YouTube - Pot Wars: Battlefield California (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcNt8Igam7E)

Time to realize the Liberty you seek is easier achieved through the states. I find it shocking people on here would cheer loss of power from the states. Also, this now sets a precedent for the law Rand was pushing to get shot down:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/firearms-freedom-act/

Rael
03-05-2010, 11:08 AM
Another point, you are talking about states rights. Chicago is a city. They don't have nullification powers anyway. Cities can't even exist without a charter from the state.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 11:10 AM
Another point, you are talking about states rights. Chicago is a city. They don't have nullification powers anyway. Cities can't even exist without a charter from the state.

True. I think I am more pissed the Illinois State Supreme didn't knock it down since it violated their State Constitution.

amy31416
03-05-2010, 11:14 AM
You haven't?


Time to realize the Liberty you seek is easier achieved through the states. I find it shocking people on here would cheer loss of power from the states. Also, this now sets a precedent for the law Rand was pushing to get shot down:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/firearms-freedom-act/

The *only* time I'd cheer a state losing power is if it was denying it's citizens natural rights, and the Federal government stepped in to protect individual liberties.

That's one of the few things the Fed gov is supposed to do, right? Ensure that the states are upholding basic liberties, especially those outlined in the Constitution?

The question is, does that give the Fed gov precedent to ignore state's rights and alleged sovereignty? I don't think so, because it is in defense of the natural rights of citizens, not an attempt to restrict them, which is clearly unconstitutional.

I'll have to disagree with Jack Hunter on this and blame it on his new girlfriend or something. Maybe she's a commie. :p

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 11:26 AM
You guys are missing the point of the Chicago Gun law. It bans hand guns. Not rifles or shotguns. It's a dumb law. Also, this should not be at the federal level anyway.

Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22 Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

This thread has pointed out many in this movement talk like they'd prefer no 10th amendment and are against State's rights.

Understanding that the 2nd amendment does not include the words "congress shall make no law" does not mean people are against "states rights" or don't believe there is a 10th amendment. Quit being such a purist. States rights have their place. But they aren't the end all - be all that you and people like the southern avenger are making them out to be.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 11:28 AM
Understanding that the 2nd amendment does not include the words "congress shall make no law" does not mean people are against "states rights" or don't believe there is a 10th amendment. Quit being such a purist. States rights have their place. But they aren't the end all - be all that you and people like the southern avenger are making them out to be.

ultimately, laws come down to arbitrary lines.

so in reality, state and local government is the end-all-be-all in regards to applying restrictions on freedom, which is what government represents in the first place.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-05-2010, 11:38 AM
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What you are saying is that the states can deny you due process when it comes to what is constitutionally required.

This of course would allow states to override the constitution on everything else and thus they could do anything they wanted, including searching your home without a search warrant.

Tapping your phone without a warrant.
They could lock you up without a trial and keep you there indefinitely.

All states have to follow the constitution of the United States or there would be chaos. There would be no country wide standard by which people could count on having justice of any kind.

The "supreme law of the land" by itself has no interpretation. If the law of the land is an apple in the tree while by legal precedence we are made to aim directly at it, then such will never be acheived.
Try it sometime. See if an apple can be shot from a tree by aiming directly at it. The natural law or our Civil Purpose is the ideal or the blue sky that we have to aim for in order for "the supreme law of the land" to have an interpretation. Without the light from a blue sky, the interpretation of "the supreme law of the land" can mean an infinite number of things.

Reason
03-05-2010, 11:52 AM
YouTube - Judge Napolitano - Recognition of States Rights and the 2nd Amendment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8Jr-f8Lqs)

tremendoustie
03-05-2010, 11:53 AM
State's rights presents problems, but fewer problems than a tyrannical federal (or regional or global) power. You have the hope of escaping one state to another, which is harder when federal and impossible when global. Don't forget that the main reason slavery existed is because of the federal government, anyway.

I support moving power from the federal government back to the states -- but the larger principle is that we must oppose tyranny wherever it is found.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
03-05-2010, 11:56 AM
It is a states issue. States and cities can make whatever laws they want. In fact, you can have a state religion.

If you allow the SCOTUS to overturn the Chicago law you are allowing the Federal government precedent where the Feds can say their gun laws are not going to be allowed for nullification by the states.

So for example, if a state wanted to do away with Free Speech, its ok?

Icymudpuppy
03-05-2010, 11:58 AM
I think instead of a "Federal Bill of Rights", there should be a declaration of NATURAL RIGHTS which may not be infringed by any government at any level. This is one roll of the UN I would support.

The right to defend oneself using the best personal weapons available to you should be one.

tremendoustie
03-05-2010, 12:01 PM
I think instead of a "Federal Bill of Rights", there should be a declaration of NATURAL RIGHTS which may not be infringed by any government at any level. This is one roll of the UN I would support.

Natural law is higher than any law -- really it is the only just law -- but I don't think we need the UN to declare natural rights -- we need to reform large numbers of individuals to recognize them. Governmental bodies cannot declare rights -- and those in power nearly always abuse rights, rather than protect them. It is the people themselves who must stand up for liberty.

If the UN is recognized to have the power to control all governments, how do we not know they will not use this power for evil and tyranny? In fact, why would we not expect it? Rights do not exist because the UN declares them -- to suppose so is to set a dangerous precedent, and to give them far too much power.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:02 PM
I think instead of a "Federal Bill of Rights", there should be a declaration of NATURAL RIGHTS which may not be infringed by any government at any level. This is one roll of the UN I would support.

And when (not if) the UN puts health care on the list of natural rights?

what say you then?

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:04 PM
So for example, if a state wanted to do away with Free Speech, its ok?

We already have federal laws against free speech. So what's the difference with state laws?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-05-2010, 12:05 PM
ultimately, laws come down to arbitrary lines.

Laws are arbitrary when we think of tyranny as master and slave. But this view of tyranny is too simple. Tyranny is a relationship between master, slave and outcaste. As the master exploits his and her slaves, the society together of both the master and slave reject the outcastes or the untouchables. While the master class will be largely immune from the laws set up in such a tyranny, the slave class will be somewhat immune from it being prosecuted more by it, and the outcaste class will be persecuted fully by it being prosecuted to the letter of the law.
When Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the Son of man, He thought of Himself as an outcaste with the classification of "man" expressing a person who is not intimately known, while the classification of son, the offspring, of such a worthless member of the multitudes would be thought of as even more worthless in comparison. So, Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be the most worthless out of the worthless.
Therefore Jesus said, "The Son of man has no place to lay His head."


so in reality, state and local government is the end-all-be-all in regards to applying restrictions on freedom, which is what government represents in the first place.

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery. It isn't like tyranny can destroy the Truth our Founding Fathers declared. As the Truth is self evident reducing unalienably as natural rights perceived by the conscience, liberty and equality are mere prerequisites.
While "The Truth will set you free," marriage is the equality of authority.
So, we should be seeking after the Truth, not liberty and equality.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:12 PM
Laws are arbitrary when we think of tyranny as master and slave. But this view of tyranny is too simple. Tyranny is a relationship between master, slave and outcaste. While the master class will be largely immune from the laws, the slave class is somewhat immune from it being prosecuted more by it, and the outcaste class is persecuted fully by it being prosecuted to the letter of the law.
When Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the Son of man, he thought of Himself as an outcaste with the classification of "man" expressing a person who is not intimately known while the son, the offspring, of such a worthless member of the multitudes would be thought of as even more worthless.



Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery. It isn't like tyranny can destroy the Truth our Founding Fathers declared. As the Truth is self evident reducing unalienably as natural rights to the conscience, liberty and equality are prerequisites.
While "The Truth will set you free," marriage is the equality of authority.
So, we should be seeking after the Truth, not liberty and equality.


Laws nearly always have an arbitrary element. Take contract law – they are only valid if entered into under a sound mind. Now go ahead and define sound mind. You will use factors such as the age of the person entering into a contract – that is totally arbitrary.

The Patriot
03-05-2010, 12:15 PM
being upheld by the SCOTUS.

Jack makes this argument as well.
YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

I want to lose a few battles (this one can be won through elections) to win our overall war.

So the city government has the power to infringe upon our natural right of self defense and gun ownership?

Agorism
03-05-2010, 12:17 PM
I thought the 14th amendment made the bill of Rights apply to every state?

Why are people saying that this only happened in 1920?

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:21 PM
Do you think the 14th amendment should be amended out of the Constitution?


Sorry but states don't have the right to ignore the constitution. This isn't a states rights issue...the state is not nullifying a law, they are nullifying the constitution itself.

The federal Constitution by its own language doesn't apply directly to states. It applies directly to the federal government, notwithstanding the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment does not require the state governments to observe the Bill of Rights. It authorizes Congress to pass laws to compel states to do so. But until Congress actually passes such laws, the amendment itself has no teeth. It was not meant as a license for the federal courts to usurp state sovereignty.

That said, the Illinois state Constitution includes the following:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

So the Chicago drug ban should be able to be struck down on that basis.

Also, while the 14th Amendment doesn't require states to recognize the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, it does authorize Congress to pass a law compelling states to do so. So if SCOTUS were to do the Constitutional thing here and recognize that it has no authority to tell Chicago what laws it can and cannot have, and if we wanted to pursue it the way the 14th Amendment authorizes, we could try to prevail upon Congress to pass a law prohibiting all states (and local governments within them) from banning any weapons with appropriate punishments for those politicians and bureaucrats who break that law.

But at the end of the day, I personally don't really like the 14th Amendment. I'd be fine with getting rid of it, or amending it with a provision that any states which do not conform to the protection of rights that Congress mandates according to the power delegated to it in the 14th Amendment should be able to secede peacefully, thus forswearing all rights, privileges, and responsibilities that go along with being part of the union.

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:22 PM
Boy, this forum sure has drifted. I would never have imagined two years ago I would see members advocating gun bans. Whew.

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 12:23 PM
We already have federal laws against free speech. So what's the difference with state laws?

And federal laws banning free speech get struck down all the time. So do state laws.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:25 PM
Boy, this forum sure has drifted. I would never have imagined two years ago I would see members advocating gun bans. Whew.

We're not. We are saying State's rights are important to protect and this ruling can be a trap.

Also, if you notice.... it's against the State of Illinois constitution and should not be in Federal courts.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:25 PM
And federal laws banning free speech get struck down all the time. So do state laws.

Yet some laws still exist.

low preference guy
03-05-2010, 12:26 PM
Boy, this forum sure has drifted. I would never have imagined two years ago I would see members advocating gun bans. Whew.

Nobody is advocating gun bans. Are you aware that Ron Paul's position is also against the Federal Government interfering with Chicago's ban?

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:27 PM
We're not. We are saying State's rights are important to protect and this ruling can be a trap.

Also, if you notice.... it's against the State of Illinois constitution and should not be in Federal courts.

I was referring to gun bans under ANY circumstances. State this, Federal that, a gun ban is a gun ban.

Declaration of Independence>U.S. Constitution

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 12:27 PM
Yet some laws still exist.

Uh-huh. Bans on child porn for instance. And states are no precluded from having child porn laws, so what's your point? The federal government can't tell you that you must take your Ron Paul bumper sticker off your car and neither can the state and that's the way it should be.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:27 PM
Boy, this forum sure has drifted. I would never have imagined two years ago I would see members advocating gun bans. Whew.

maybe you just weren't paying that close attention

I'm been here longer then you, and my position has not changed one bit.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:28 PM
I was referring to gun bans under ANY circumstances. State this, Federal that, a gun ban is a gun ban.

Declaration of Independence>U.S. Constitution

so you want 3 year olds running around with loaded weapons so long as their parents are ok with it?

ps. the DoI was never a binding document, it was a private letter to the king.

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:29 PM
Nobody is advocating gun bans. Are you aware that Ron Paul's position is also against the Federal Government interfering with Chicago's ban?

That information has nor would not sway my opinion about gun bans anywhere, any time.

Agorism
03-05-2010, 12:29 PM
What's the name of the 1920's court hearing demanding that all Bill of Rights be applied?

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:29 PM
I thought the 14th amendment made the bill of Rights apply to every state?

Why are people saying that this only happened in 1920?

The 14th Amendment itself nowhere says that the Bill of Rights applies to every state. In fact, the notion is nonsense, since the Bill of Rights clearly protects state sovereignty from federal usurpation. The 1st Amendment, for example, explicitly prohibits the federal government from interfering with state institution of religion. To say that the 14th Amendment means that states cannot have instituted religions is not to make the 1st Amendment apply to the states, it's to eliminate the 1st Amendment in its original intent completely. And try to wrap your head around how the 10th Amendment can be extended by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states somehow.

What the 14th Amendment does is authorize Congress to pass whatever laws are necessary to ensure that the states protect the rights of their citizens.

What happened, though, was that that part of the 14th Amendment has been bypassed by the courts. I don't know the specific history. I was thinking it started in the 1930's. But if others are saying the 1920's they might be right.

payme_rick
03-05-2010, 12:30 PM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

and some more hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Gunna pull out the ole constitution (I actually have the original) and do some readin'...

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:31 PM
What's the name of the 1920's court hearing demanding that all Bill of Rights be applied?

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29

It looks like the watershed moment was Gitlow v. New York in 1925.

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 12:32 PM
so you want 3 year olds running around with loaded weapons so long as their parents are ok with it?


That's totally legal in Tennessee and no I don't have a problem with it.

http://www.opencarry.org/tn.html

Should governments interfere with what parents think is safe for their children? Where do you draw the line?

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 12:32 PM
The 14th Amendment does not require the state governments to observe the Bill of Rights.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Clearly this is prohibiting states from passing or enforcing certain laws - laws which either abridge privileges/immunities of U.S. citizens or undermine due process/equal protection of the law. If you look at the legislative history of this amendment it is clear that it was intended to extend, to the states, all of the limits of federal government power set forth in the Bill of Rights.

Point is, it's not necessary for congress to "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article," although they do have the power to do so, in order to make this prohibition against certain forms of state action applicable.

On top of that, congress has passed statues pursuant to the 5th clause such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:32 PM
so you want 3 year olds running around with loaded weapons so long as their parents are ok with it?

ps. the DoI was never a binding document, it was a private letter to the king.

Is this a straw man or is the bill really about banning 3 year olds from toting guns?

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 12:33 PM
Nobody is advocating gun bans. Are you aware that Ron Paul's position is also against the Federal Government interfering with Chicago's ban?

And Judge Napolitano has taken the opposite position.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:34 PM
That's totally legal in Tennessee and no I don't have a problem with it.

http://www.opencarry.org/tn.html

Should governments interfere with what parents think is safe for their children? Where do you draw the line?

good for the people of Tennesee. It is not legal in Iowa, and I think we are fine banning such things.

So now the question is how big of an interventionist are you. You willing to fight to force your views on us Iowans?

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:35 PM
This topic has made it clear to me that I do NOT agree with Ron Paul on everything.

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 12:36 PM
good for the people of Tennesee. It is not legal in Iowa, and I think we are fine banning such things.

So now the question is how big of an interventionist are you. You willing to fight to force your views on us Iowans?

Straw man on top of a straw man? Civil war over this issue isn't even on the table. But if it were I'd put my money on the state where kids as young as 3 learned how to use guns. ;)

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:36 PM
good for the people of Tennesee. It is not legal in Iowa, and I think we are fine banning such things.

So now the question is how big of an interventionist are you. You willing to fight to force your views on us Iowans?

If the State was more sovereign than the individual, we'd all be British.

payme_rick
03-05-2010, 12:36 PM
So now the question is how big of an interventionist are you. You willing to fight to force your views on us Iowans?

I don't think it's really forcing any view of his other than his view of what the constitution says...

let's not get sidetracked with the wrong argument...

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:36 PM
I was referring to gun bans under ANY circumstances. State this, Federal that, a gun ban is a gun ban.

Declaration of Independence>U.S. Constitution

No one is advocating gun bans. It's like the people saying Bunning was blocking unemployment. It's a surface statement.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:37 PM
Think harder. Do you support state's rights to institute a system of slavery?


No, I don't. On the other hand, neither do I support granting the federal government the authority to prevent them from doing so if they ever did.

But that's a straw man argument anyway. It is not the case that slavery existed because states had too much sovereignty and the federal government had too little control over them. It was the exact opposite. Slavery was made possible to persist the way it did precisely because the federal government exercised too much control over the states, specifically by prohibiting any state from allowing runaway slaves to seek asylum there, and instead requiring every state to return runaway slaves to their masters in the states they came from. If state sovereignty had not been usurped by the federal government in that way, then the slavery wouldn't have been able to persist.

The Patriot
03-05-2010, 12:38 PM
We're not. We are saying State's rights are important to protect and this ruling can be a trap.

Also, if you notice.... it's against the State of Illinois constitution and should not be in Federal courts.

Do Chicago police have the right to search one's home without a warrant?

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 12:39 PM
In fact, the notion is nonsense, since the Bill of Rights clearly protects state sovereignty from federal usurpation.

No, that is nonsense. The bill of rights has nothing to do with protecting state sovereignty (again, with the exception of the catch-all 10th), and everything to do with protecting individual citizens against the federal government by guaranteeing criminal due process and by restricting congress' authority to pass certain legislation.

A state does not need to be "protected" against the Federal government stationing troops in "its home" nor does it need to be protected against cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it need to be protected against double jeopardy - these are only legal entitlements/protections that can logically be associated with human beings not states! I really don't understand where this misguided notion is coming from.


The 1st Amendment, for example, explicitly prohibits the federal government from interfering with state institution of religion.

It does not say "state institution of religion". It's not even addressing the states AT ALL. All it does is restrict the power of the federal government. It does not "protect" the state government.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:40 PM
Do Chicago police have the right to search one's home without a warrant?

Under the Patriot Act they do.

Again, Chicago is a city. State Constitution trumps the city. Also, people can move easier from state to state.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:40 PM
Do Chicago police have the right to search one's home without a warrant?

No they don't. Nor does the federal government have a right to stop them.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:41 PM
Under the Patriot Act they do.



Oh really? Where in the Patriot Act does it say that?

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:41 PM
Is this a straw man or is the bill really about banning 3 year olds from toting guns?

the debate is if states can infringe on gun ownership.

I think keeping guns out of 3 year olds hands is a form of infringement, so this is not a straw man.

laws preventing felons from owning guns is also a form of infringement.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:43 PM
Straw man on top of a straw man? Civil war over this issue isn't even on the table. But if it were I'd put my money on the state where kids as young as 3 learned how to use guns. ;)

didn't say civil war, I said fight. What you just did is actually the straw man.

taking a state ruling to the supreme court is a legal fight, and a form of intervention of a sovereign body.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:43 PM
No, that is nonsense. The bill of rights has nothing to do with protecting state sovereignty (again, with the exception of the catch-all 10th), and everything to do with protecting individual citizens against the federal government by guaranteeing criminal due process and by restricting congress' authority to pass certain legislation.

A state does not need to be "protected" against the Federal government stationing troops in "its home" nor does it need to be protected against cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it need to be protected against double jeopardy - these are only legal entitlements/protections that can logically be associated with human beings not states! I really don't understand where this misguided notion is coming from.



It does not say "state institution of religion. It's not even addressing the states AT ALL. All it does is restrict the power of the federal government. It does not "protect" the state government.

The Bill of Rights does protect state sovereignty precisely because of the reasons you claim it does not. The Bill of Rights nowhere limits state power, but only limits federal power. The first amendment specifically prohibits Congress (i.e. the federal government) from passing any laws respecting (i.e. having anything at all to do with) the establishment of religion. Therefore, if any of the states had established religions, which most of them did at the time that they ratified the Constitution, the 1st Amendment specifically prohibited the federal government interfering with their doing that. The 14th Amendment, as it was originally intended, didn't change this one bit. But even if the 14th Amendment did in any way mitigate the affect of the 1st Amendment in protecting states' rights to institute religion, it still only did so by authorizing Congress to pass such laws as would be necessary to accomplish that, laws which wouldn't exist until such time as they were passed by Congress, not by authorizing the courts to do it. The same argument applies to the 2nd Amendment as well.

Also, the 10th Amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights, is as explicit of a protection of state sovereignty as there is anywhere.

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:44 PM
the debate is if states can infringe on gun ownership.

I think keeping guns out of 3 year olds hands is a form of infringement, so this is not a straw man.

laws preventing felons from owning guns is also a form of infringement.

Felons = another straw man

This debate is about Natural Rights vs. State Rights.

Natural Rights > State Rights.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:45 PM
Oh really? Where in the Patriot Act does it say that?
Email and Phone records are allowed to be searched without warrant.

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:46 PM
The Bill of Rights does protect state sovereignty precisely because of the reasons you claim it does not. The Bill of Rights nowhere limits state power, but only limits federal power. The first amendment specifically prohibits Congress (i.e. the federal government) from passing any laws respecting (i.e. having anything at all to do with) the establishment of religion. Therefore, if any of the states had established religions, which most of them did at the time that they ratified the Constitution, the 1st Amendment specifically prohibited the federal government interfering with their doing that.

Also, the 10th Amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights, is as explicit of a protection of state sovereignty as there is anywhere.

Then what was the purpose of creating a Federal Government if the States were 100% sovereign?

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:46 PM
Let's be honest here. Raise hand if you'd still have a hand gun if made illegal by your city.

*raises hand*

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:47 PM
Felons = another straw man

This debate is about Natural Rights vs. State Rights.

Natural Rights > State Rights.

this debate is about the current issue before the supreme court.

It is about if states can infringe on gun possession

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 12:47 PM
the debate is if states can infringe on gun ownership.

I think keeping guns out of 3 year olds hands is a form of infringement, so this is not a straw man.

laws preventing felons from owning guns is also a form of infringement.

So if someone were to attempt to amend the Iowa constitution to include the right to bear arms, would you be for that or against it?

As for the whole "felon" thing, I have mixed feelings about that considering how much bovine scat is passed off as "felony" these days. And felons once released from custody don't lose their right to free speech.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:47 PM
Then what was the purpose of creating a Federal Government if the States were 100% sovereign?

Then what was the purpose of creating a United Nations if the Countries were 100% sovereign?

You do it for partnership on common interest.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:47 PM
Let's be honest here. Raise hand if you'd still have a hand gun if made illegal by your city.

*raises hand*

~ raises hand

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:48 PM
this debate is about the current issue before the supreme court.

It is about if states can infringe on gun possession

And...the answer is nope.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:48 PM
So if someone were to attempt to amend the Iowa constitution to include the right to bear arms, would you be for that or against it?

As for the whole "felon" thing, I have mixed feelings about that considering how much bovine scat is passed off as "felony" these days. And felons once released from custody don't lose their right to free speech.

But they do lose their right to vote.

The Patriot
03-05-2010, 12:48 PM
this debate is about the current issue before the supreme court.

It is about if states can infringe on gun possession

Under the second amendment, they can't.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-05-2010, 12:48 PM
So for example, if a state wanted to do away with Free Speech, its ok?

No. Where the Federal government by way of the Supreme Court surpassed its authority is when it started sitting in on matters other than is written in the U.S. Constitution. Those matters not addressed should be left to the individual states to decide. But a state can't pass a law against the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. At best, a state can only pass a law that makes that particular Federal law more effective as the state of Texas has done in regards to its own state Bill of Rights. Every citizen of Texas is treated better than the typical U.S. citizen because they are granted not only the rights of U.S. citizens but even more rights while each of them are guaranteed in comparison (the state pays if it is wrong). While the Federal Government should be allowed to interfere in matters pertaining to the Bill of Rights and the other ammendments, it shouldn't be allowed to meddle in any other law outside of what is expressly addressed in the U.S. Constitution. An example of this is environmental laws as such jobs can be performed more intimately in each state, city or town from close proximity while tyranny has always proved that it can't manage such tasks efficiently from a long distance away.
But the days are evil meaning that a Jubilee of tyranny has set about legislating new laws through the administering of policies, administering new policies through the acts of judicial interpretation, while those who are supposed to be legislating new measures for the sake of the people's Civil Purpose have turned their attentions towards more promescuous endeavors delving into the highly lucrative benefits of private business becoming money changing bankers profitting from their acts of lobbying. If this contempt was the intentions of our Founding Fathers, then why have three distinct branches of government?

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:48 PM
So if someone were to attempt to amend the Iowa constitution to include the right to bear arms, would you be for that or against it?

As for the whole "felon" thing, I have mixed feelings about that considering how much bovine scat is passed off as "felony" these days. And felons once released from custody don't lose their right to free speech.

an unconditional right to bear arms? against it.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 12:49 PM
No they don't. Nor does the federal government have a right to stop them.

It's not the "federal government" stopping them from doing something when the Supreme Court finds their actions UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They send this decision back down the pipe and the state courts issue injunctions which are carried out by state law enforcement etc.

The only thing "federal" about it is that the supreme court, there being no other reasonable way of settling disputes involving constitutional interpretation, necessarily must be the court to decide whether the constitution has been violated.

The constitution is like a contract between the state governments and the federal government. The Supreme Court, being the most independent branch of the federal government, is best positioned to resolve questions of contractual interpretation.

The Bill of Rights was included in the contract to limit the power of the federal government and has, as it's primary effect, served to essentially give individuals rights as against the federal government - NOT to support or preserve the states (again, with the exception of one portion of the 10th amendment which is just a catch-all).

If the Federal Government attempted to enact a law establishing a national religion, states would not be able to sue the national government on the grounds that it violated their sovereignty. Rather, affected individuals would be able to challenge the constitutionality of the law under the actual language of the 1st amendment which has nothing to do with states rights, whatsoever.

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:49 PM
Then what was the purpose of creating a United Nations if the Countries were 100% sovereign?

You do it for partnership on common interest.

I have no idea why the United Nations was created nor do I care if it goes away.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 12:50 PM
Under the second amendment, they can't.

yet they always have and always will.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:52 PM
It's not the "federal government" stopping them from doing something when the Supreme Court finds their actions UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But if the Supreme Court finds their actions unconstitutional, the Supreme Court is wrong about that, and for precisely the reason you gave above. The 1st amendment does not in any way limit state governments, only the federal government. The Court shouldn't be legislating from the bench. The Constitution does not give it that power. This includes in the application of the 14th Amendment, which, according to the 14th Amendment itself, is only to be enforced according to laws passed for that purpose by Congress.

BamaFanNKy
03-05-2010, 12:53 PM
I have no idea why the United Nations was created nor do I care if it goes away.

Agreed.

RCA
03-05-2010, 12:53 PM
But if the Supreme Court finds their actions unconstitutional, the Supreme Court is wrong about that, and for precisely the reason you gave above. The 1st amendment does not in any way limit state governments, only the federal government. The Court shouldn't be legislating from the bench. The Constitution does not give it that power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:55 PM
The Bill of Rights was included in the contract to limit the power of the federal government and has, as it's primary effect, served to essentially give individuals rights as against the federal government - NOT to support or preserve the states (again, with the exception of one portion of the 10th amendment which is just a catch-all).


But what about the 1st Amendment, which protects the rights of the states to institute religions without Congress's interference? That's a preservation of states' rights.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 12:57 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Supremacy clause specifically applies to the Constitution and laws passed according to it. Since the Constitution itself prohibits the federal government from passing any laws having anything to do with the institution of religion, I fail to see how the supremacy clause could be appealed to as a way of giving it that authority.

Any law passed by Congress that prohibits any state from instituting religion is a law which the 1st amendment specifically prohibits Congress from passing. Therefore, it is not a law "of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance" of the Constitution, and the supremacy clause does not apply to it. Nor is this mitigated in any way by such a law being legislated from the bench instead of from Congress, since a law legislated from the bench cannot be one in pursuance of the Constitution either.

The Patriot
03-05-2010, 12:58 PM
yet they always have and always will.

Doesn't make it Constitutional.

RCA
03-05-2010, 01:00 PM
The Supremacy clause specifically applies to the Constitution and laws passed according to it. Since the Constitution itself prohibits the federal government from passing any laws having anything to do with the institution of religion, I fail to see how the supremacy clause could be appealed to as a way of giving it that authority.

It means that rights protected by the Constitution (bearing arms) shall not be infringed by the States because the powers ceded to the Federal Government are supreme to any State law contradicting that right.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:01 PM
The Bill of Rights does protect state sovereignty precisely because of the reasons you claim it does not. The Bill of Rights nowhere limits state power, but only limits federal power. The first amendment specifically prohibits Congress (i.e. the federal government) from passing any laws respecting (i.e. having anything at all to do with) the establishment of religion. Therefore, if any of the states had established religions, which most of them did at the time that they ratified the Constitution, the 1st Amendment specifically prohibited the federal government interfering with their doing that.

Right and then look at all of the rights/privileges listed in the bill of rights that cannot, even as an unintentional byproduct, be claimed to "protect state sovereignty". Requiring grand juries in federal criminal cases has NOTHING to do with state sovereignty, it has to do with protecting the liberty of individual human beings hence why it is called the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Just because a prohibition on certain federal power incidentally prevents them from curtailing some state action has nothing to do with the fundamental purpose of the bill of rights which is to protect individuals. The whole point of the 14th amendment was to hammer home the idea that these rights only exist to protect individuals, and that states should be forced, by the Constitution, to respect those same rights.



But even if the 14th Amendment did in any way mitigate the affect of the 1st Amendment in protecting states' rights to institute religion, it still only did so by authorizing Congress to pass such laws as would be necessary to accomplish that, laws which wouldn't exist until such time as they were passed by Congress, not by authorizing the courts to do it. The same argument applies to the 2nd Amendment as well.

You're just flat-out wrong about this. Sorry. Assuming that the privileges/immunities/due process/equal protection listed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the Bill of Right's limitation of government power and protection of individual rights (as they most certainly do, as evidenced by the legislative history etc), it's pretty clear that it applies as against state governments on its face, with or withing further federal legislation. Read: "No State shall..."

jmdrake
03-05-2010, 01:02 PM
But they do lose their right to vote.

And the right to vote is in the bill of rights where exactly? And even when the right to vote was mentioned in the 14th amendment, it explicitly gave an exception for people who had engaged in rebellion or other crime. (That's why you had a lot of black elected politicians in the south. A lot of southern whites has been stripped of voting).

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:02 PM
Doesn't make it Constitutional.

no, but in this case it is.

The constitution was designed to replace the articles. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought because people were concerned that the newly created federal government would not be limited sufficiently, so they had to amend it to ensure ratification. These bill 0f rights were not put into place because people feared their local government.

The first instances of using the constitution to strike out preexisting state law happened 50+ years later - when the people initially agreeing to the constitution were largely dead and buried.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:06 PM
You're just flat-out wrong about this. Sorry. Assuming that the privileges/immunities/due process/equal protection listed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the Bill of Right's limitation of government power and protection of individual rights (as they most certainly do, as evidenced by the legislative history etc), it's pretty clear that it applies as against state governments on its face, with or withing further federal legislation. Read: "No State shall..."

The 14th amendment is not just 1 clause. If you want to appeal to one part of it, you have to keep that in context of the rest, including:

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
It doesn't give that power to the Court. It gives it to Congress only.

There's nothing in the first part of it the 14th amendment that clearly overturns the 1st amendment's protection of states' rights to institute religion. But even if there were, such as if a state instituted religion were a deprivation of liberty (which for the sake of argument I'll concede), it's still the case that the 14th Amendment itself does nothing to overturn state laws that institute state religions, but only leaves it as Congress's call to make as to whether such laws deprive liberty and what is to be done about them if they do. But until Congress actually does that, then those laws stand. The court system can't do anything about it. As Hamilton said in his commentary on the constitutional authority of the judicial branch in Federalist 78, "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

The Patriot
03-05-2010, 01:07 PM
no, but in this case it is.

The constitution was designed to replace the articles. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought because people were concerned that the newly created federal government would not be limited sufficiently, so they had to amend it to ensure ratification. These bill 0f rights were not put into place because people feared their local government.

The first instances of using the constitution to strike out preexisting state law happened 50+ years later - when the people initially agreeing to the constitution were largely dead and buried.

The Bill of Rights was create to defend individual rights from the state and federal government. The second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged, period. It doesn't say that the federal government shall not abridge this right, but that is shouldn't be abridged at all. Reaffirming individual and natural rights is not federal encroachment, it is the Constitutional function of the Federal Government. I believe in state sovereignty, but the states do no have the power to override the bill of rights unless they wish to secede. Secession is within Constitutional parameters and I support it. I support states' rights and localism, however I believe no government(federal, state, local) has the power or privilege to override natural rights.

RCA
03-05-2010, 01:07 PM
no, but in this case it is.

The constitution was designed to replace the articles. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought because people were concerned that the newly created federal government would not be limited sufficiently, so they had to amend it to ensure ratification. These bill 0f rights were not put into place because people feared their local government.

The first instances of using the constitution to strike out preexisting state law happened 50+ years later - when the people initially agreeing to the constitution were largely dead and buried.

Historical intricacies are meaningless to me when it comes down to a natural right. If we are talking public policy, then that is another matter.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:08 PM
But if the Supreme Court finds their actions unconstitutional, the Supreme Court is wrong about that, and for precisely the reason you gave above. The 1st amendment does not in any way limit state governments, only the federal government. The Court shouldn't be legislating from the bench. The Constitution does not give it that power. This includes in the application of the 14th Amendment, which, according to the 14th Amendment itself, is only to be enforced according to laws passed for that purpose by Congress.

State laws establishing a state-religion or banning guns, etc, are all unconstitutional under the 14th amendment which states, for the 14th time in this thread, that: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This has been interpreted, over many years by the Supreme Court, and for good reason, to be a reference to the individual rights/privileges/due process, etc contained in the bill of rights. So the 14th amendment just says: you state actors can't do those things either.

It's critical to understand that the plain language alone provides all of the prohibition necessary for the Supreme Court to strike down state laws which violate the provision (hence the "No State shall") - the 5th section of the 14th amendment simply gives congress more options because they realized that they would be dealing with asshole states who would refuse to recognize individual liberties and/or constitutional limitations on their own power.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:09 PM
Historical intricacies are meaningless to me when it comes down to a natural right. If we are talking public policy, then that is another matter.

then you really have no business in a discussion pertaining to contract law dated in the late 1700's

Original_Intent
03-05-2010, 01:10 PM
So you are telling me that if the federal government places a ban on certain guns or bullets you will stand with the Federal Govt. over the states authority to overturn?

Wow, talk about missing the point.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is not registering?

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:11 PM
But what about the 1st Amendment, which protects the rights of the states to institute religions without Congress's interference? That's a preservation of states' rights.

It doesn't say that though! Do you understand that a hypothetical Constitutional amendment which stated: "No State shall institute a religion" would be PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the plain text, original intent, and historical interpretation of the 1st amendment? It would, because the first amendment says NOTHING about preserving the authority of states to institute their own religions. NOTHING.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:12 PM
The Bill of Rights was create to defend individual rights from the state and federal government. The second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged, period. It doesn't say that the federal government shall not abridge this right, but that is shouldn't be abridged at all. Reaffirming individual and natural rights is not federal encroachment, it is the Constitutional function of the Federal Government. I believe in state sovereignty, but the states do no have the power to override the bill of rights unless they wish to secede. Secession is within Constitutional parameters and I support it. I support states' rights and localism, however I believe no government(federal, state, local) has the power or privilege to override natural rights.

Again, before, during, and after the 2nd amendment was passed, states and communities infringed on gun possession.

Your views on what the 2nd says is irrelevant to society. Nobody is going to protect an unconditional right to bear arms, so that right doesn’t exist for all practical purposes, no matter how natural you view the right to be.

If people don’t want to defend your rights, you can scream about them all you want and it means nothing.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:13 PM
It doesn't say that though!

Yes, it does. It expressly prohibits the federal government from interfering with states that institute religions. Therefore, it does protect state sovereignty with regard to that.

The Patriot
03-05-2010, 01:14 PM
Again, before, during, and after the 2nd amendment was passed, states and communities infringed on gun possession.

Your views on what the 2nd says is irrelevant to society. Nobody is going to protect an unconditional right to bear arms, so that right doesn’t exist for all practical purposes, no matter how natural you view the right to be.

If people don’t want to defend your rights, you can scream about them all you want and it means nothing.

Congratulations, you believe might makes right, but I believe in the Constitution and the plain language of the second amendment. I also believe that gun ownership and self defense is a natural right that shall not be infringed upon.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:14 PM
Do you understand that a hypothetical Constitutional amendment which stated: "No State shall institute a religion" would be PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the plain text, original intent, and historical interpretation of the 1st amendment?

No it wouldn't. Such an amendment would be a perfectly explicit overturning of the 1st Amendment according to its original intent. Now, since it would be an amendment, I think that could be done, since one amendment can overturn a previous one. On the other hand, if Congress tried to pass that as a law, and not as an amendment, the 1st amendment says they can't.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:19 PM
Congratulations, you believe might makes right, but I believe in the Constitution and the plain language of the second amendment. I also believe that gun ownership and self defense is a natural right that shall not be infringed upon.

the people that initially ratified the constitution viewed the 2nd differently then you did. I'm going to go ahead and say they had a better understanding on what they approved then you do.

as for might makes right - we live in reality. I have no interest in fighting for a form of government that nobody wants to live under because it would quickly be replaced anyway.

Nobody wants dangerous felons to be able to own guns. Nobody wants young children to handle loaded weapons in public.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:19 PM
The Bill of Rights was create to defend individual rights from the state and federal government.

No, it wasn't. The Bill of Rights was created to defend individual rights and states from the federal government.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:20 PM
No, it wasn't. The Bill of Rights was created to defend individual rights and states from the federal government.

+1

RCA
03-05-2010, 01:21 PM
no, it wasn't. The bill of rights was created to defend individual rights and states from the federal government.

in that order.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:21 PM
It means that rights protected by the Constitution (bearing arms) shall not be infringed by the States because the powers ceded to the Federal Government are supreme to any State law contradicting that right.

No, the supremacy clause does not say that. Therefore, it does not mean that.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:22 PM
Email and Phone records are allowed to be searched without warrant.

Earlier you said homes. That's what I was asking about.

But even at that, that's another good illustration of the same principle. Under the original Constitution, as originally intended, the states were not prohibited from having peoples' homes searched without warrants, only the federal government was. It was only later court rulings that expanded the 4th amendment to apply to state governments. Of course the states' own constitutions may have also had similar provisions (and I wouldn't be surprised if they all did), but they weren't limited in their powers to do that by the federal constitution.

RCA
03-05-2010, 01:23 PM
No, the supremacy clause does not say that. Therefore, it does not mean that.

It does say that and it also means that.

"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 notwithstanding."

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:24 PM
So you are telling me that if the federal government places a ban on certain guns or bullets you will stand with the Federal Govt. over the states authority to overturn?

no, the power to infringe the RKBA is not reserved to the Federal Government, only to power to prevent infringement. If the Federal Government tried to infringe then it's up to the States per the 10th to prevent Federal infringement.

Neither the Federal Government nor the States have been granted the power to infringe on the RKBA, but BOTH have the power to PREVENT infringement.

How is this not the clear plain meaning of the text??? :confused:

low preference guy
03-05-2010, 01:27 PM
That information has nor would not sway my opinion about gun bans anywhere, any time.

I wasn't referring to your opinion. I was referring to your statement: "Boy, this forum sure has drifted." How has it drifted? The name of the forum is RonPaulForums, and Ron Paul is against the Feds interfering with Chicago. Also, you accused us of supporting gun bans, which is also false. Some of us just believe that the case should be argued using Illinois constitution, which protects the right to bear arms.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:28 PM
It does say that and it also means that.

"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 notwithstanding."

I'm confused. You say that the supremacy clause says, "that rights protected by the Constitution (bearing arms) shall not be infringed by the States because the powers ceded to the Federal Government are supreme to any State law contradicting that right." But then you quote the supremacy clause itself, and it doesn't say that.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:30 PM
The 14th amendment is not just 1 clause. If you want to appeal to one part of it, you have to keep that in context of the rest, including:

It doesn't give that power to the Court. It gives it to Congress only.

Oh my god, give me a break. Guess what - the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the authority to enforce the constitution! It's called judicial review, it's a legal principle of constitutional interpretation that was developed well before the 14th amendment was drafted and it basically states that the supreme court has the power to interpret the constitution and strike down unconstitutional laws, and since the 14th amendment is part of the constitution the supreme court has the inherent authority to strike down state laws which violate the 14th amendment just as they have the inherent authority to strike down federal laws that violate the first amendment even though NO WHERE in the constitution or bill of rights does it actually state that they have the power to do so.



There's nothing in the first part of it the 14th amendment that clearly overturns the 1st amendment's protection of states' rights to institute religion.

Are you just trolling me at this point? The first amendment only explicitly LIMITS the federal government's authority to pass legislation, the text does not promise anything to states WHATSOEVER! It does not say that states have the right to establish religions, it does not say that states rights exist! It does not say anything AT ALL about the fucking states! Any legal claim based on the theory that states have 'rights' cannot logically be based on a constitutional provision that simply does not purport to grant or recognize a state right, AT ALL!

If we have a contract saying that I'm not allowed to turn off your lights, that doesn't mean you necessarily have a contractual right to keep them on! Maybe the contract is silent on that point and you have the right to keep your lights on based on some other pre-existing legal authority besides our contract, but your right to keep your lights on would not legally ARISE from the provision prohibiting me from turning them off.



But even if there were, such as if a state instituted religion were a deprivation of liberty (which for the sake of argument I'll concede), it's still the case that the 14th Amendment itself does nothing to overturn state laws that institute state religions, but only leaves it as Congress's call to make as to whether such laws deprive liberty and what is to be done about them if they do.

Wrong. "No State shall..." That means that if the state DOES do what they are PROHIBITED from doing, it's as unconstitutional as if Congress passed a law in violation of "Congress shall make no law..". Same. Exact. Thing.


But until Congress actually does that, then those laws stand.

To the contrary, they don't stand because they are rightfully struck down as unconstitutional state acts.



The court system can't do anything about it.

Except they can. Namely, striking down unconstitutional laws - a function of the Supreme Court that ALL of the drafters of the 14th amendment were WELL aware of and supported at the time they wrote and passed the 14th amendment.



As Hamilton said in his commentary on the constitutional authority of the judicial branch in Federalist 78, "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Right, which is why court orders are carried out by the executive branch. So what? The Supreme Court has the authority to strike down unconstitutional laws, and states which pass laws violating the 14th amendment are going to have their laws struck down, end of story.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:30 PM
I wasn't referring to your opinion. I was referring to your statement: "Boy, this forum sure has drifted." How has it drifted? The name of the forum is RonPaulForums, and Ron Paul is against the Feds interfering with Chicago. Also, you accused us of supporting gun bans, which is also false. Some of us just believe that the case should be argued using Illinois constitution, which protects the right to bear arms.

he's right, it has changed. The pendulum has swung towards a powerful central government designed to protect our freedoms, which was not the majority during the election.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:31 PM
It's called judicial review, it's a legal principle of constitutional interpretation that was developed well before the 14th amendment


you know where judicial review comes from?

judicial review.

I would love you plain text proponents to explain that one for me.

low preference guy
03-05-2010, 01:31 PM
And Judge Napolitano has taken the opposite position.

He was analyzing the law in the current context. He also claimed that Starbucks has no right to have a store free of guns. This position infringes property rights, so I think the Judge was making a positive statement in the current context, not taking about how things should be.

Lastly, if you read my comment, it was in response to someone who said something like "Boy, this forum has drifted"? I pointed out the position of Ron Paul to show that the forum name "RonPaulForums" have not drifted. I don't think your argument about Napolitano is relevant, because this is not JudgeNapolitanoForums.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't understand the disconnect here, what am I missing? I am a 100% States-reserved-powers kinda guy, but the text of the 10th Amendment is clear also -- only those powers NOT RESERVED to the Federal Government in the Constitution are therefore reserved to the States or the People.

That means that if the Constitution does NOT reserve the power to itself, then the power belongs to the States, however if the Constitution DOES reserve the power unto itself, then that power does NOT belong to the States. Period.

I couldn't possibly care less about the 14th Amendment, the 2nd and the 10th are all you need to work this one out. The Federal Government has reserved unto itself to power to prevent State infringement per the 2nd Amendment, and the State Governments have reserved unto themselves the power to prevent Federal infringement per the 10th Amendment.

I cannot fathom how this is not clear as day to anybody reading the document.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:32 PM
Oh my god, give me a break. Guess what - the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the authority to enforce the constitution! It's called judicial review

That's not in the Constitution. And since the rest of your ranting is based on the misconception that it is, it's moot.

low preference guy
03-05-2010, 01:33 PM
he's right, it has changed. The pendulum has swung towards a powerful central government designed to protect our freedoms, which was not the majority during the election.

As far as I recall, whether the Fed should stop states from violating individual rights wasn't an issue during the election.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Yes, it does. It expressly prohibits the federal government from interfering with states that institute religions. Therefore, it does protect state sovereignty with regard to that.

I'm going to ask you again:

Do you understand that a hypothetical Constitutional amendment which stated: "No State shall institute a religion" would be PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the plain text, original intent, and historical interpretation of the 1st amendment? It would, because the first amendment says NOTHING about preserving the authority of states to institute their own religions. NOTHING.

The fact that, absent the hypothetical amendment (or 14th amendment), the first amendment would, in effect 'protect' the ability of the state to institute a religion has nothing to do with whether the fist amendment actually grants or recognizes a state right to institute a religion (which it expressly DOES NOT).

If the first amendment said that "the state's right to institute a religion shall not be infringed", do you understand how that would differ from the ACTUAL language of the first amendment and thus alter the legal consequences? Because right now you are equating the two.

low preference guy
03-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Then what was the purpose of creating a Federal Government if the States were 100% sovereign?

Cooperation in National Defense and having a free trade area among the states.

RCA
03-05-2010, 01:35 PM
He was analyzing the law in the current context. He also claimed that Starbucks has no right to have a store free of guns. This position infringes property rights, so I think the Judge was making a positive statement in the current context, not taking about how things should be.

Lastly, if you read my comment, it was in response to someone who said something like "Boy, this forum has drifted"? I pointed out the position of Ron Paul to show that the forum name "RonPaulForums" have not drifted. I don't think your argument about Napolitano is relevant, because this is not JudgeNapolitanoForums.

The title "Liberty Forest" is much more prominent than "Ron Paul Forums". That's what I've considered the name of the forums to be after the election of 2008.

Old Ducker
03-05-2010, 01:36 PM
If the commerce clause empowers the federal goverment to make commerce regular, or uniform, among the states, then it would seem to me the bill of rights applies to the states as well as to the us government. Dont' like it? Then gtfo (seceed).

tremendoustie
03-05-2010, 01:36 PM
a powerful central government designed to protect our freedoms

I support anyone stopping tyranny -- even the government. It'd be just about the only moral thing they've done in recent memory. I don't want the federal government to be powerful -- in fact, I don't support forced taxation at all, but if some group of men from Illinois are going to start threatening people who have guns and stealing their money, I support stopping them. If it's the Feds who stop them, it just means they did something good for once.
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2582183)

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:36 PM
I couldn't possibly care less about the 14th Amendment, the 2nd and the 10th are all you need to work this one out. The Federal Government has reserved unto itself to power to prevent State infringement per the 2nd Amendment, and the State Governments have reserved unto themselves the power to prevent Federal infringement per the 10th Amendment.


Let's say the federal government has reserved to itself the power to prevent state infringement of our right to bear arms. Even at that, reserving that right and exercising that right are two different things. In order for the federal government actually to exercise that right which is reserved to it, Congress must pass a law that not only says that states cannot infringe our right to bear arms but that also allocates funds for the enforcement of that law according to whatever methods are prescribed within that law. The courts can't do it--or at least they wouldn't be able to according to the Constitution as originally intended.

This is not only true of the Constitution prior to the 14th amendment, but it is still true with the 14th amendment, and is explicitly stated within it.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:38 PM
he's right, it has changed. The pendulum has swung towards a powerful central government designed to protect our freedoms, which was not the majority during the election.

It seems to me that the folks on this forum are simply reading the Constitution and taking it at face value, rather than allowing their personal philosophies to override the clear plain reading of the text.

You see, this is the problem I have always had with Democrats and Republicans, for pretty much my entire life. They don't obey the Constitution if and when it goes against some personal philosophical position that they take. They demand others obey the Constitution, but when it comes to their pet issue it's OK to just ignore it.

Well, in my strange little world, IT'S NEVER OK TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION PERIOD!

I have been going around for two years lecturing Republicans that we must obey the Constitution "...even when it hurts."

I hold myself to no less of a standard.

I am shocked an appalled that there are so many here who do not hold themselves to this standard also.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:39 PM
No it wouldn't. Such an amendment would be a perfectly explicit overturning of the 1st Amendment according to its original intent. Now, since it would be an amendment, I think that could be done, since one amendment can overturn a previous one. On the other hand, if Congress tried to pass that as a law, and not as an amendment, the 1st amendment says they can't.

No! You're just totally wrong. Read these two rules. Read them like fifty times until you realize that they DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER AT ALL.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

"No State shall make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

These are PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER.

Here's another example.

"Congress shall not burn people at the stake"
"No State shall burn people at the state"

You're saying that these are inconsistent rules. That's retarded.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 01:40 PM
The federal Constitution by its own language doesn't apply directly to states. It applies directly to the federal government, notwithstanding the 14th Amendment. .........

When was Article VI repealed? I seem to have missed that.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:42 PM
No! You're just totally wrong. Read these two rules. Read them like fifty times until you realize that they DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER AT ALL.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

"No State shall make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


If that second statement were a law passed by Congress, then it would be a law passed by Congress in direct disobedience of the first statement, since the second statement itself is a law respecting (i.e. having something to do with) the establishment of religion.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:42 PM
you know where judicial review comes from?

judicial review.

I would love you plain text proponents to explain that one for me.

Yes i know where it comes from and no i'm not a plain text proponent.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:43 PM
It seems to me that the folks on this forum are simply reading the Constitution and taking it at face value, rather than allowing their personal philosophies to override the clear plain reading of the text.

You see, this is the problem I have always had with Democrats and Republicans, for pretty much my entire life. They don't obey the Constitution if and when it goes against some personal philosophical position that they take. They demand others obey the Constitution, but when it comes to their pet issue it's OK to just ignore it.

Well, in my strange little world, IT'S NEVER OK TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION PERIOD!

I have been going around for two years lecturing Republicans that we must obey the Constitution "...even when it hurts."

I hold myself to no less of a standard.

I am shocked an appalled that there are so many here who do not hold themselves to this standard also.

Yes, people are reading it, ignoring the original intent, and reconstructing it to fit their ideology.

I gave concrete examples. A plain text reading of the constitution prevents insane people from having their rights infringed, yet from the very beginning government was allowed to do that very thing. So what you are doing is the worst possible thing to do in regards to contracts. You ignore the intent and the original understanding for political expediency.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 01:43 PM
Is this a straw man or is the bill really about banning 3 year olds from toting guns?

Another straw man from the scarecrow.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:44 PM
When was Article VI repealed? I seem to have missed that.

Never. We've already been over that.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:45 PM
Let's say the federal government has reserved to itself the power to prevent state infringement of our right to bear arms. Even at that, reserving that right and exercising that right are two different things. In order for the federal government actually to exercise that right which is reserved to it, Congress must pass a law that not only says that states cannot infringe our right to bear arms but that also allocates funds for the enforcement of that law according to whatever methods are prescribed within that law. The courts can't do it--or at least they wouldn't be able to according to the Constitution as originally intended.

Actually, the Congress does not need to pass any kind of law to bar the States from infringing against the RKBA, the 2nd Amendment is already the law of the land. Being a Constitutional edict, it is left to the SCOTUS to intercede when a violation of that law takes place, just like what has actually worked properly (for once!) in Chicago.

IF Congress were to have passed legislation to further prevent the States from infringement beyond the prohibition recorded in the 2nd A, THEN there would have to be some kind of 'boots on the ground' enforcement.

They do have the power to do that, but I am sure glad they have not. It is my hope that the SCOTUS decision will be sufficient.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:47 PM
That's not in the Constitution. And since the rest of your ranting is based on the misconception that it is, it's moot.

Aww, can't handle the heat?

I'm sorry that I have to educate you on so much, but if you didn't make ridiculous arguments such as "the 14th amendment doesn't actually prohibit state actions without further acts of congress" I wouldn't have to school you.

Here let's see how you deal with your own stupidity: while the first amendment states the congress shall not make laws interfering with religion, until there is a law passed by congress to put that into effect, all the laws congress passes which violate the first amendment stand! Well, so much for states rights!

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:47 PM
Actually, the Congress does not need to pass any kind of law to bar the States from infringing against the RKBA, the 2nd Amendment is already the law of the land. Being a Constitutional edict, it is left to the SCOTUS to intercede when a violation of that law takes place, just like what has actually worked properly (for once!) in Chicago.

IF Congress were to have passed legislation to further prevent the States from infringement beyond the prohibition recorded in the 2nd A, THEN there would have to be some kind of 'boots on the ground' enforcement.

They do have the power to do that, but I am sure glad they have not. It is my hope that the SCOTUS decision will be sufficient.

SCOTUS doesn't have that authority. Nowhere does the Constitution give it that authority. As Hamilton correctly said, according to the Constitution, the court has "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html

Or, let me put if this way. Suppose SCOTUS tells Chicago they can't ban guns. Chicago replies by saying back to SCOTUS, "We can't ban guns or else you'll do what?" And they go on to continue banning guns. SCOTUS won't be able to do anything about it. And they are only able to do anything about it now only as long as the Chicago government willfully submits to them. On the other hand, if Congress passed a law telling Chicago not to ban guns, and that federal law enforcement officers would arrest and charge with some crime defined by a law passed by Congress any Chicago police who tried to take someone's gun, and allocated funds for the enforcement of this law, so that the executive branch would then be constitutionally obligated to so arrest such Chicago policemen, then we'd have something with teeth.

Hence, in the 14th amendment the final clause, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Without that clause the remainder of the 14th amendment is nothing but words on paper (or at least would be if we stuck to the Constitution according to its original meaning).

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 01:48 PM
If that second statement were a law passed by Congress, then it would be a law passed by Congress in direct disobedience of the first statement, since the second statement itself is a law respecting (i.e. having something to do with) the establishment of religion.

Yea, but it's not a law. It's part of the U.S. Constitution just like the first rule.

DUUUHHHH!

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:48 PM
Yes, people are reading it, ignoring the original intent, and reconstructing it to fit their ideology.

Well, I'm glad at least that you have admitted it. :p


I gave concrete examples. A plain text reading of the constitution prevents insane people from having their rights infringed, yet from the very beginning government was allowed to do that very thing.

So personal preference should trump written law? That sounds awfully liberal/progressive to me. Exactly WHAT are you trying to conserve here?


So what you are doing is the worst possible thing to do in regards to contracts. You ignore the intent and the original understanding for political expediency.

Actually, from where I sit, it seems that YOU are ignoring original intent for political expediency. After all, the whole notion of overlooking the clear, plain written language of the law in favor of "the way things have traditionally been done" as you are arguing for here, is the dictionary definition of political expediency, is it not?

Todd
03-05-2010, 01:49 PM
When was Article VI repealed? I seem to have missed that.

Yes. It seems that if state judges apply this correctly then they have no authority to overturn anything in the BOR etc.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:50 PM
SCOTUS doesn't have that authority. Nowhere does the Constitution give it that authority. As Hamilton correctly said, according to the Constitution, the court "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html)

And how is judging a pending court case based on the text of the law not "merely judgment?"

RCA
03-05-2010, 01:53 PM
I'm done here.

Icymudpuppy
03-05-2010, 01:53 PM
And when (not if) the UN puts health care on the list of natural rights?

what say you then?

Depends on how it is worded...

"You have a right to care for your own health however you see fit (including naturopathic, modern, eastern, alternative, witch, etc.)"

So long as it doesn't claim to put a right to someone else's labor but simply frees people to choose their own methods without being forced to take flu vaccines or undergo surgery, or take pharmaceuticals.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 01:53 PM
Well, I'm glad at least that you have admitted it.
So personal preference should trump written law? That sounds awfully liberal/progressive to me. Exactly WHAT are you trying to conserve here?

Actually, from where I sit, it seems that YOU are ignoring original intent for political expediency. After all, the whole notion of overlooking the clear, plain written language of the law in favor of "the way things have traditionally been done" as you are arguing for here, is the dictionary definition of political expediency, is it not?

I admit it. I’m accusing you of political expediency.

This isn’t about personal preference for me. I am being honest and seeing that neither the original intent, nor the original understanding gave universal rights to gun possession. People didn’t want it then, and people don’t want it now. It would not be right to force a reconstructed version of the 2nd amendment on people, nor would it stick because the idea is so far outside of the realm of acceptable governance that it would quickly be overturned anyway.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:53 PM
Yes. It seems that if state judges apply this correctly then they have no authority to overturn anything in the BOR etc.

Indeed correct. Article 6 of the Constituion should put ALL of this bickering to rest, again, without even a need to invoke the controversial 14th (which I also hate), but some people seem to prize personal philosophy above and beyond the Constitution, which thing I just don't get.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 01:58 PM
I admit it. I’m accusing you of political expediency.

This isn’t about personal preference for me. I am being honest and seeing that neither the original intent, nor the original understanding gave universal rights to gun possession. People didn’t want it then, and people don’t want it now. It would not be right to force a reconstructed version of the 2nd amendment on people, nor would it stick because the idea is so far outside of the realm of acceptable governance that it would quickly be overturned anyway.

Seems to me that both original intent, original interpretation, AND the plain written text recognized the natural human right to keep and bear arms, and granted to the Federal Government the power to prevent infringements by any party.

Oh, and by the way, our rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are granted by God as a condition of our human existence, and merely recognized by the Constitution and the DoI as being inalienable.

If it is not right to force a reconstructed version of the 2nd on people, then why on Earth are you doing it?? :confused:

erowe1
03-05-2010, 01:59 PM
And how is judging a pending court case based on the text of the law not "merely judgment?"

It is merely judgment, or at least it ought to be, which is why it should not be what you described above as SCOTUS interceding. SCOTUS has no authority to intercede. Nor does the Chicago government have any constitutional duty to let SCOTUS tell it what to do.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-05-2010, 02:01 PM
The Bill of Rights was create to defend individual rights from the state and federal government. The second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged, period. It doesn't say that the federal government shall not abridge this right, but that is shouldn't be abridged at all. Reaffirming individual and natural rights is not federal encroachment, it is the Constitutional function of the Federal Government. I believe in state sovereignty, but the states do no have the power to override the bill of rights unless they wish to secede. Secession is within Constitutional parameters and I support it. I support states' rights and localism, however I believe no government(federal, state, local) has the power or privilege to override natural rights.

A civil right is guaranteed by legal precedence in The U.S. Constitution while a natural right is guaranteed by natural law in The Declaration of Independence. As indiviudauls are ruled by legal precedents, with this being the necessary tyranny established by our Founding Fathers, governments are judged by the self evident and unalienable Truth, with this being the People's Civil Purpose.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:02 PM
Seems to me that both original intent, original interpretation, AND the plain written text recognized the natural human right to keep and bear arms, and granted to the Federal Government the power to prevent infringements by any party.

Oh, and by the way, our rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are granted by God as a condition of our human existence, and merely recognized by the Constitution and the DoI as being inalienable.

If it is not right to force a reconstructed version of the 2nd on people, then why on Earth are you doing it?? :confused:

We have prevented insane people from possessing guns long before we even had an article of confederation. The first case using the 2nd to protect a person from his state happened nearly 50 years after ratification.

You are wrong about original intent and original understanding. And your views are so unpopular that arguing them is a waste of time anyway.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 02:05 PM
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
<<Back (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html) | Table of Contents (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html) | Next>> (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A7.html)

(http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A7.html)
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


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 notwithstanding.


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.(emphasis added)


Why is this not MORE than enough to put an end to this nonsensical argument?

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 02:10 PM
It is merely judgment, or at least it ought to be, which is why it should not be what you described above as SCOTUS interceding. SCOTUS has no authority to intercede. Nor does the Chicago government have any constitutional duty to let SCOTUS tell it what to do.

um, that's all the courts DO, is intercede, or act as a mediator between two offended parties and impose a "veto" against one of the two.


intercede [ˌɪntəˈsiːd]vb (intr)1. (often foll by in) to come between parties or act as mediator or advocate to intercede in the strike
2. (Historical Terms) Roman history (of a tribune or other magistrate) to interpose a veto[from Latin intercēdere to intervene, from inter- + cēdere to move]
interceder n


Collins English Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003



in·ter·cede (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)
intr.v. in·ter·ced·ed, in·ter·ced·ing, in·ter·cedes 1. To plead on another's behalf.
2. To act as mediator in a dispute.

[Latin interchttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifdere, to intervene : inter-, inter- + chttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifdere, to go; see ked- in Indo-European roots.]
inhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifter·cedhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifer n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.

johnrocks
03-05-2010, 02:11 PM
My rights are not for sale to the highest bidder, be it local,State or Federal, I don't care if Ron Paul himself supports the ban, I won't,don't and never will!

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 02:13 PM
We have prevented insane people from possessing guns long before we even had an article of confederation. The first case using the 2nd to protect a person from his state happened nearly 50 years after ratification.

You are wrong about original intent and original understanding. And your views are so unpopular that arguing them is a waste of time anyway.

We have also killed and enslaved people long before we had an article of confederation. We subjected people to unwarranted searches and seizures long before we had the articles of confederation too.

You are wrong about original intent and original understanding. And your views are so unpopular that arguing them is a waste of time anyway. :rolleyes:

IE: "You are wrong and nobody likes you, I don't have a real argument against what you are saying so I'm taking my ball AND GOING HOME!"

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:15 PM
(emphasis added)


Why is this not MORE than enough to put an end to this nonsensical argument?

For the same reason the king couldn’t squash a rebellion.

As a well spoken conservative gave for the revolutionary war – ““We had always governed ourselves, and we always will”

States have always had the power to limit gun rights, and we always will. You strong central government proponents can go jump off a cliff in that regard.

Interventionists suck ass

Pericles
03-05-2010, 02:16 PM
It means that rights protected by the Constitution (bearing arms) shall not be infringed by the States because the powers ceded to the Federal Government are supreme to any State law contradicting that right.

Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner!

Number19
03-05-2010, 02:21 PM
It doesn't say that though! Do you understand that a hypothetical Constitutional amendment which stated: "No State shall institute a religion" would be PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with the plain text, original intent, and historical interpretation of the 1st amendment? It would, because the first amendment says NOTHING about preserving the authority of states to institute their own religions. NOTHING.But the fact is that several of the States had state religions at the time of ratification. The political mood of the time was in support of religious freedom and slowly, on their own by way of amending their state constitutions, these states came into agreement with the federal constitution's first amendment. Massachusetts was the last, maintaining it's state sanctioned religion until 1833.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 02:24 PM
For the same reason the king couldn’t squash a rebellion.

As a well spoken conservative gave for the revolutionary war – ““We had always governed ourselves, and we always will”

States have always had the power to limit gun rights, and we always will. You strong central government proponents can go jump off a cliff in that regard.

Interventionists suck ass

What the hell are you talking about? I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST, and I, for one, demand that our government obey the CONSTITUTION no matter what, whether they like it or don't like it, and I hold myself to that same standard.

If the Constitution needs to be changed, then it can be amended.

Clearly you are one of those who thinks it's OK to just ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it.

States have never had the power to limit gun-rights. You "living-document Constitution" proponents can just go jump off a cliff in that regard.

Mob-rule proponents suck ass.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 02:28 PM
But the fact is that several of the States had state religions at the time of ratification. The political mood of the time was in support of religious freedom and slowly, on their own by way of amending their state constitutions, these states came into agreement with the federal constitution's first amendment. Massachusetts was the last, maintaining it's state sanctioned religion until 1833.

While I would rather that the 1st Amendment be applied universally like the 2nd clearly is, it is not written that way. At the start, the several States did have the right to have State religions, because the 1st Amendment applies only to Congress, ie "Congress shall make no law."

Now, most State Constitutions recognize freedom of religion as well, and that is a good thing.

The only thing regarding religion that was applied from the original US Constitution out into all the States was the "no religious tests" clause in Article 6.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:32 PM
What the hell are you talking about? I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST, and I, for one, demand that our government obey the CONSTITUTION no matter what, whether they like it or don't like it, and I hold myself to that same standard.

If the Constitution needs to be changed, then it can be amended.

Clearly you are one of those who thinks it's OK to just ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it.

States have never had the power to limit gun-rights. You "living-document Constitution" proponents can just go jump off a cliff in that regard.

Mob-rule proponents suck ass.

You are a federalist and apparently an interventionist. You seek to overturn local government rule with decisions made by courts/people in far away lands.

States have always had the power to limit gun rights. It took 50 years after ratification for the first living breathing reconstructionist to claim otherwise.

I am intelligent enough to see past your bullshit. Your views of the 2nd amendment were not the views the people that ratified it had. They are not the views the people that live under the law today have. For political expedience you are seeking to force your views on to people that would reject it otherwise.

Promontorium
03-05-2010, 02:36 PM
State's rights presents problems, but fewer problems than a tyrannical federal (or regional or global) power. You have the hope of escaping one state to another, which is harder when federal and impossible when global. Don't forget that the main reason slavery existed is because of the federal government, anyway.

So you're pro state slavery.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 02:38 PM
We have prevented insane people from possessing guns long before we even had an article of confederation. The first case using the 2nd to protect a person from his state happened nearly 50 years after ratification.

You are wrong about original intent and original understanding. And your views are so unpopular that arguing them is a waste of time anyway.

I invite your attention to the Militia Act of 1792 (amended 1795), not that you will respond to this either:

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ............. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, ................ and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Note that every white male citizen (presumably including the insane and convicted felons) is required to have arms and equipment suitable for military service, and that equipment is exempt from tax and siezure for any reason.

Seems very consistent with the 2A not being infringend for any reason at any level of government to me.

Promontorium
03-05-2010, 02:38 PM
You are a federalist and apparently an interventionist. You seek to overturn local government rule with decisions made by courts/people in far away lands.

States have always had the power to limit gun rights. It took 50 years after ratification for the first living breathing reconstructionist to claim otherwise.

I am intelligent enough to see past your bullshit. Your views of the 2nd amendment were not the views the people that ratified it had. They are not the views the people that live under the law today have. For political expedience you are seeking to force your views on to people that would reject it otherwise.

Natural rights are inalienable rights. They do not care what you call the government. Removal of rights is tyranny.

You, and your disgusting cohorts support slavery, tyranny, and every measurable crime against individuals. Calling it "state's rights" reveals your bias.

I suppose if Germany had been a state, it would have been all right with you for Governor Hitler to stick jews in ovens. You know, because states can destroy any right they want.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:41 PM
So you're pro state slavery.


I know I’m on the right side of the argument when my opponents are forced to use such sophomoric attacks typical of the loony left.

Nobody is actually for slavery, but we do recognize that change doesn’t occur overnight and you won’t get positive change via force from the barrel of a gun.

Cowlesy
03-05-2010, 02:42 PM
please keep the discussion civil.

there's a lot of disagreement out there, everyone thinks they have it exactly right, and no one thinks there is any interpretation necessary but clearly there are many moving parts.

Cowlesy
03-05-2010, 02:42 PM
Natural rights are inalienable rights. They do not care what you call the government. Removal of rights is tyranny.

You, and your disgusting cohorts support slavery, tyranny, and every measurable crime against individuals. Calling it "state's rights" reveals your bias.

I suppose if Germany had been a state, it would have been all right with you for Governor Hitler to stick jews in ovens. You know, because states can destroy any right they want.

What is that law, Godwin's Law? That only took how many posts?

Cowlesy
03-05-2010, 02:45 PM
So you're pro state slavery.


Natural rights are inalienable rights. They do not care what you call the government. Removal of rights is tyranny.

You, and your disgusting cohorts support slavery, tyranny, and every measurable crime against individuals. Calling it "state's rights" reveals your bias.

I suppose if Germany had been a state, it would have been all right with you for Governor Hitler to stick jews in ovens. You know, because states can destroy any right they want.

Invoking Hitler and then slavery kills your credibility with a lot of people. It is often seen as the last gasp for air when you enter the vacuum of ad-hominem, personal attacks.

just fyi

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:45 PM
I invite your attention to the Militia Act of 1792 (amended 1795), not that you will respond to this either:

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ............. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, ................ and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Note that every white male citizen (presumably including the insane and convicted felons) is required to have arms and equipment suitable for military service, and that equipment is exempt from tax and siezure for any reason.

Seems very consistent with the 2A not being infringend for any reason at any level of government to me.


Wow.

The insane are able bodied?

I’m not even sure they were free, which is another requirement, but no way would I define them as able bodied.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:46 PM
Natural rights are inalienable rights. They do not care what you call the government. Removal of rights is tyranny.

You, and your disgusting cohorts support slavery, tyranny, and every measurable crime against individuals. Calling it "state's rights" reveals your bias.

I suppose if Germany had been a state, it would have been all right with you for Governor Hitler to stick jews in ovens. You know, because states can destroy any right they want.

Yep, me and my disgusting cohorts, like Dr. Ron Paul.

Promontorium
03-05-2010, 02:47 PM
Invoking Hitler and then slavery kills your credibility with a lot of people. It is often seen as the last gasp for air when you enter the vacuum of ad-hominem, personal attacks.

just fyi


I didn't bring up slavery, they did, they said that a person could just escape to another state. Hence pro state slavery.

And when you argue that any state can impose any law, and natural rights are not a factor, where does it end?

This is not ad hominem. These people are literally arguing that states are bound by no restriction, and that slavery is ok.

just fyi.

Promontorium
03-05-2010, 02:48 PM
Yep, me and my disgusting cohorts, like Dr. Ron Paul.

You draw no line for state imposed tyranny, you disgust me. Ron Paul wouldn't agree with your unlimited law ideal.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 02:48 PM
Wow.

The insane are able bodied?

I’m not even sure they were free, which is another requirement, but no way would I define them as able bodied.

It would seem they are and posting in this forum.:D

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:51 PM
It would seem they are and posting in this forum.:D

Posting on the internet ! = a free citizen.

Prisoners typically get internet time too. Which may explain the nut jobs opposing me on this.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 02:54 PM
You draw no line for state imposed tyranny, you disgust me. Ron Paul wouldn't agree with your unlimited law ideal.

Ron Paul does agree with me on this issue.

Tyranny is simply a product of man. I fear man that lives amongst me far less then man living in ivory towers in far off lands.

So my line is one based on reason and logic, not unicorns and magical text that prevents tyranny.

Promontorium
03-05-2010, 02:56 PM
Ron Paul does agree with me on this issue.

Tyranny is simply a product of man. I fear man that lives amongst me far less then man living in ivory towers in far off lands.

So my line is one based on reason and logic, not unicorns and magical text that prevents tyranny.

I do not appreciate your insults. I think the moderator has already chosen sides, so I suppose the day is yours.

I am simply pro rights. Regardless of the title of the government. Pro individual rights. If that makes me insane, and a believer in fantasy as you insult, then so be it.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 03:00 PM
I do not appreciate your insults. I think the moderator has already chosen sides, so I suppose the day is yours.

I am simply pro rights. Regardless of the title of the government. Pro individual rights. If that makes me insane, and a believer in fantasy as you insult, then so be it.

If you think a strong central government will ever be in your best interest in fighting tyranny, then I have to come out and say you are living in fantasy land.

Don’t think I called you insane though.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-05-2010, 03:08 PM
If you think a strong central government will ever be in your best interest in fighting tyranny, then I have to come out and say you are living in fantasy land.

Don’t think I called you insane though.

A tyranny is an evil antagonist that exists outside the borders of the United States in places like Europe; whereas, a "necessary tyranny" is something our Founding Fathers established to serve the people's Civil Purpose.

Number19
03-05-2010, 03:09 PM
I invite your attention to the Militia Act of 1792 (amended 1795), not that you will respond to this either:

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ............. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, ................ and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Note that every white male citizen (presumably including the insane and convicted felons) is required to have arms and equipment suitable for military service, and that equipment is exempt from tax and siezure for any reason.

Seems very consistent with the 2A not being infringend for any reason at any level of government to me.I'm getting into this discussion very late. I've skimmed the previous 150+ posts and there is a lot there.

But when you write "...Seems very consistent with the 2A not being infringend for any reason at any level of government to me..." exactly what do you mean by "infringed for any reason"? I ask this from the historical perspective that local communities have always been legally empowered to have "no carry" ordinances. I have not researched, but I presume, that this power was supported by the community's state constitution.

tremendoustie
03-05-2010, 03:09 PM
Invoking Hitler and then slavery kills your credibility with a lot of people. It is often seen as the last gasp for air when you enter the vacuum of ad-hominem, personal attacks.

just fyi


I think extreme examples, like slavery and Hitler, are good tools for examining a philosophy. For example, some say that police are "just doing their jobs" when they do immoral things, and they think police should enforce the law, no matter what the law is. It's worthwhile to ask these people whether they think nazi prison guards were right to execute Jews, for example, or agents of the government were right to track down escaped slaves in this country.

This illustrates the fact that not all laws should be obeyed or enforced, if they are immoral.

Of course, the Hitler/slavery thing can certainly be abused, if it's not used respectfully.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 03:16 PM
Natural rights are inalienable rights. They do not care what you call the government. Removal of rights is tyranny.

You, and your disgusting cohorts support slavery, tyranny, and every measurable crime against individuals. Calling it "state's rights" reveals your bias.

I suppose if Germany had been a state, it would have been all right with you for Governor Hitler to stick jews in ovens. You know, because states can destroy any right they want.

You are correct about rights. It is always wrong for all governments to infringe upon peoples' natural rights.

However, the question is not just whether or not Chicago has the right to ban guns, in the sense that it is right for them to do that. It is definitely not right for them to do that. The question is whether or not the federal government has the right to intervene and stop them when they do that. And just as the basic question about the right to bear arms can be addressed as both a constitutional question and a natural rights question so can this one.

Constitutionally, does the Supreme Court have the right to interfere with a Chicago gun ban, I say, no it doesn't. I think the arguments people have put forward based on both the 14th Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution are incorrect.

However, let's just say for the sake of argument that either of those arguments were correct. Let's say that the Constitution did grant SCOTUS the power to strike down Chicago laws. One might still argue that it would be against natural rights for them to do that for the same reason that it goes against natural rights for us to intervene in Iraq. (I'm wishy washy about this personally, but for the sake of argument, it might go something like as follows.) You mention Hitler. Yes, Hitler was wrong. But the guilt for that wrong and the moral burden to correct it were born by the people of Germany, not by the rest of the world. Likewise, when Chicago passes a law infringing upon the rights of its citizens, it is not the case that any other government has the right to tax me in order to fund some operation of regime change or whatever else it might do in Chicago to rectify that. Natural rights demands a bottom up system where the individual (or I might prefer to say the family) is sovereign with respect to other individuals (or perhaps families) and with respect to the local government to which he has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting him. That local government, while subject to the individuals in its constituency, is sovereign with respect to other local governments elsewhere and with respect to the state government to which it has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting its constituents. That state government is subject to the individuals and the local governments that delegate their power to it, but it is sovereign with respect to the federal government to which it has delegated some roles.

The Constitution may or may not be in agreement with a bottom-up system of sovereignty like this. However, if it is not in agreement with it, then the necessary conclusion to an argument such as the preceding would be that to the degree that the Constitution diverges from that bottom-up system, the Constitution is wrong and should not be obeyed. So from a natural rights perspective, SCOTUS, by this reasoning, would be wrong to overturn a Chicago gun ban, and would be wrong even if it were acting constitutionally in so doing.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-05-2010, 03:17 PM
I'm getting into this discussion very late. I've skimmed the previous 150+ posts and there is a lot there.

But when you write "...Seems very consistent with the 2A not being infringend for any reason at any level of government to me..." exactly what do you mean by "infringed for any reason". I ask this from the historical perspective that local communities have always been legally empowered to have "no carry" ordinances. I have not researched, but I presume, that this power was supported by the community's state constitution.

As the U.S. military stands in defense of "necessary tyranny," the American Aristocracy serving as the necessary head of this nation, the militia stands in defense of the people. I've often told my two sons that they might grow up to choose to work in the U.S. military, but that they were born to serve in the people's militia. But one can't make people serve as unofficial guards of the worthless people, that has to be their choice. It is certainly a choice that I have made.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 03:21 PM
You are correct about rights. It is always wrong for all governments to infringe upon peoples' natural rights.

However, the question is not just whether or not Chicago has the right to ban guns, in the sense that it is right for them to do that. It is definitely not right for them to do that. The question is whether or not the federal government has the right to intervene and stop them when they do that. And just as the basic question about the right to bear arms can be addressed as both a constitutional question and a natural rights question so can this one.

Constitutionally, does the Supreme Court have the right to interfere with a Chicago gun ban, I say, no it doesn't. I think the arguments people have put forward based on both the 14th Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution are incorrect.

However, let's just say for the sake of argument that either of those arguments were correct. Let's say that the Constitution did grant SCOTUS the power to strike down Chicago laws. It would still be against natural rights for them to do that for the same reason that it goes against natural rights for us to intervene in Iraq. You mention Hitler. Yes, Hitler was wrong. But the guilt for that wrong and the moral burden to correct it were born by the people of Germany, not by the rest of the world. Likewise, when Chicago passes a law infringing upon the rights of its citizens, it is not the case that any government has the right to tax me in order to fund some operation of regime change or whatever else it might do in Chicago to rectify that. Natural rights demands a bottom up system where the individual (or I might prefer to say the family) is sovereign with respect to other individuals (or perhaps families) and with respect to the local government to which he has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting him. That local government, while subject to the individuals in its constituency, is sovereign with respect to other local governments elsewhere and with respect to the state government to which it has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting its constituents. That state government is subject to the individuals and the local governments that delegate their power to it, but it is sovereign with respect to the federal government to which it has delegated some roles.

The Constitution may or may not be in agreement with a bottom up system of sovereignty like this. However, if it is not in agreement with it, then to the degree that it diverges from it, the Constitution is wrong and should not be obeyed. So from a natural rights perspective, SCOTUS is wrong to overturn a Chicago gun ban, and would be wrong even if it were acting constitutionally.

This post should be required reading!

tremendoustie
03-05-2010, 03:26 PM
You are correct about rights. It is always wrong for all governments to infringe upon peoples' natural rights.

However, the question is not just whether or not Chicago has the right to ban guns, in the sense that it is right for them to do that. It is definitely not right for them to do that. The question is whether or not the federal government has the right to intervene and stop them when they do that. And just as the basic question about the right to bear arms can be addressed as both a constitutional question and a natural rights question so can this one.

Constitutionally, does the Supreme Court have the right to interfere with a Chicago gun ban, I say, no it doesn't. I think the arguments people have put forward based on both the 14th Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution are incorrect.

However, let's just say for the sake of argument that either of those arguments were correct. Let's say that the Constitution did grant SCOTUS the power to strike down Chicago laws. It would still be against natural rights for them to do that for the same reason that it goes against natural rights for us to intervene in Iraq. You mention Hitler. Yes, Hitler was wrong. But the guilt for that wrong and the moral burden to correct it were born by the people of Germany, not by the rest of the world. Likewise, when Chicago passes a law infringing upon the rights of its citizens, it is not the case that any government has the right to tax me in order to fund some operation of regime change or whatever else it might do in Chicago to rectify that. Natural rights demands a bottom up system where the individual (or I might prefer to say the family) is sovereign with respect to other individuals (or perhaps families) and with respect to the local government to which he has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting him. That local government, while subject to the individuals in its constituency, is sovereign with respect to other local governments elsewhere and with respect to the state government to which it has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting its constituents. That state government is subject to the individuals and the local governments that delegate their power to it, but it is sovereign with respect to the federal government to which it has delegated some roles.

The Constitution may or may not be in agreement with a bottom up system of sovereignty like this. However, if it is not in agreement with it, then to the degree that it diverges from it, the Constitution is wrong and should not be obeyed. So from a natural rights perspective, SCOTUS is wrong to overturn a Chicago gun ban, and would be wrong even if it were acting constitutionally.

Great point.

I guess I just feel that unlike Iraq, where the federal government was invading and taking over an area which they had not previously controlled, the government is already involved in every minutia of our lives. It's not like the federal government is respecting individual sovereignty anyway. That they would choose not to defend our gun rights seems less a decision in favor of non-intervention, and more a decision in favor of intervention only on behalf of tyranny.

The modus operandi of both the federal and state governments violate natural rights every day. In this context, it's hard to make a clear moral judgment in conflicts between them. The moral issues are already so muddled and lost -- really, neither answer is moral.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:28 PM
You are a federalist and apparently an interventionist. You seek to overturn local government rule with decisions made by courts/people in far away lands.

For the umpteenth time, I am a Constitutionalist. I have always been a Constitutionalist, and I will always be a Constitutionalist. You can lie about me and try to spin my position until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day it just makes you a liar and a spin-doctor.

I notice also that in most of your replies to me in this thread, you simply cut out the salient points and proceed to attack me as though they never existed. That demonstrates a supreme lack of intellectual integrity.

You also claimed earlier that almost everybody in here opposed my position, wherein I have stated time and again that the Constitution means what it says and should be obeyed, even when we disagree with it. First and foremost, I'm throwing the bullshit flag on that play, and second, even if I were the only single sole proponent of truth on the entire planet Earth, I am not going to give up promoting truth merely because the lie is more popular.


States have always had the power to limit gun rights. It took 50 years after ratification for the first living breathing reconstructionist to claim otherwise.

Show me the court cases then, wise guy. Oh that's right, you said you couldn't be bothered to come up with any evidence to back your wacky assertions.


I am intelligent enough to see past your bullshit. Your views of the 2nd amendment were not the views the people that ratified it had. They are not the views the people that live under the law today have. For political expedience you are seeking to force your views on to people that would reject it otherwise.

You are the one invoking political expedience; contradicting everything our Fouders said time and again, everything the Constitution itself states directly, for sake of a tradition that you claim exists without even producing evidence to demonstrate that your claim is valid.

I could just as easily claim that Thomas Jefferson maintained a tradition of keeping 13-eyed Martians in his basement to mate with one-toed Venusians, and have as much evidence for that claim as you have provided for yours.

I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution says what it says, and it means what it meant at the time it was writen. You can twist and subvert all you want, and maybe you can even convince the whole world to follow after your personal brand of tyranny, but at the end of the day you will still be a mob-rules tyrant, and I will still be the guy advocating for a Constitutional republic according to our Founders intent.

Your polemic in this and other threads on the same topic is nothing short of disgusting. Since when do Paulers accept lies, spin-doctoring, ad-hominems, personal insults, and outright fiction in lieu of reasoned integritous debate?

Imperial
03-05-2010, 03:30 PM
It is a states issue. States and cities can make whatever laws they want. In fact, you can have a state religion.

If you allow the SCOTUS to overturn the Chicago law you are allowing the Federal government precedent where the Feds can say their gun laws are not going to be allowed for nullification by the states.

That idea was destroyed a long time ago...



However, let's just say for the sake of argument that either of those arguments were correct. Let's say that the Constitution did grant SCOTUS the power to strike down Chicago laws. One might still argue that it would be against natural rights for them to do that for the same reason that it goes against natural rights for us to intervene in Iraq. (I'm wishy washy about this personally, but for the sake of argument, it might go something like as follows.) You mention Hitler. Yes, Hitler was wrong. But the guilt for that wrong and the moral burden to correct it were born by the people of Germany, not by the rest of the world. Likewise, when Chicago passes a law infringing upon the rights of its citizens, it is not the case that any other government has the right to tax me in order to fund some operation of regime change or whatever else it might do in Chicago to rectify that. Natural rights demands a bottom up system where the individual (or I might prefer to say the family) is sovereign with respect to other individuals (or perhaps families) and with respect to the local government to which he has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting him. That local government, while subject to the individuals in its constituency, is sovereign with respect to other local governments elsewhere and with respect to the state government to which it has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting its constituents. That state government is subject to the individuals and the local governments that delegate their power to it, but it is sovereign with respect to the federal government to which it has delegated some roles.

If we are going by natural rights then a local government has no more right to take away your right to bear arms. Just because the tyranny has devolved does not make tyranny any more justified.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:31 PM
Great point.

I guess I just feel that unlike Iraq, where the federal government was invading and taking over an area which they had not previously controlled, the government is already involved in every minutia of our lives. It's not like the federal government is respecting individual sovereignty anyway. That they would choose not to defend our gun rights seems less a decision in favor of non-intervention, and more a decision in favor of intervention only on behalf of tyranny.

The modus operandi of both the federal and state governments violate natural rights every day. In this context, it's hard to make a clear moral judgment in conflicts between them. The moral issues are already so muddled and lost -- really, neither answer is moral.

Iraq has never been a party to the US Constitution. Illinois is currently a party to the US Constitution. If they want the power to infringe against the RKBA, which the Constitution (which they are a party to) does not grant them, then they should secede.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 03:33 PM
For the umpteenth time, I am a Constitutionalist.

I'm a constitutionalists. You disagree with me on this issue.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 03:33 PM
I'm getting into this discussion very late. I've skimmed the previous 150+ posts and there is a lot there.

But when you write "...Seems very consistent with the 2A not being infringend for any reason at any level of government to me..." exactly what do you mean by "infringed for any reason"? I ask this from the historical perspective that local communities have always been legally empowered to have "no carry" ordinances. I have not researched, but I presume, that this power was supported by the community's state constitution.

Following state courts struck down state concealed carry laws based on the 2A of the US Constitution:

Bliss v. Kentucky (1822)
NC v Huntly (1842)
Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
Cockrum v. Texas (1859)


Before Civil War Reconstruction, the only case I know of a concealed carry law being upheld is Arkansas v. Buzzard (1842) as concealed carry restriction did not interfere with militia service

Texas reverses itself in 1872 with English v. Texas as the Texas post Civil War Constitution gives the legislature the power to regulate the wearing and carrying arms with a view to prevent crime.

Here is a later one I really find amusing:

In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun-while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [ State v. Nieto , 101 Ohio St. 409, 430, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).]

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 03:34 PM
Show me the court cases then, wise guy. Oh that's right, you said you couldn't be bothered to come up with any evidence to back your wacky assertions.

If I go to the library and show you the law that states had on their books, you will admit you are wrong?

Anti Federalist
03-05-2010, 03:34 PM
The modus operandi of both the federal and state governments violate natural rights every day. In this context, it's hard to make a clear moral judgment in conflicts between them. The moral issues are already so muddled and lost -- really, neither answer is moral.

+1

Put in a crude and simple way:

Do we eat a bowl of shit or a bowl of puke, here?

Pericles
03-05-2010, 03:44 PM
..............
Constitutionally, does the Supreme Court have the right to interfere with a Chicago gun ban, I say, no it doesn't. I think the arguments people have put forward based on both the 14th Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution are incorrect.

However, let's just say for the sake of argument that either of those arguments were correct. Let's say that the Constitution did grant SCOTUS the power to strike down Chicago laws. One might still argue that it would be against natural rights for them to do that for the same reason that it goes against natural rights for us to intervene in Iraq. .................

The Constitution may or may not be in agreement with a bottom-up system of sovereignty like this. However, if it is not in agreement with it, then the necessary conclusion to an argument such as the preceding would be that to the degree that the Constitution diverges from that bottom-up system, the Constitution is wrong and should not be obeyed. So from a natural rights perspective, SCOTUS, by this reasoning, would be wrong to overturn a Chicago gun ban, and would be wrong even if it were acting constitutionally in so doing.

The SCOTUS may only overturn those state and local laws contrary to the Constitution, it does not have the power to overturn any other state or local law - this is an important distiction that I think is being lost in the discussion.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:44 PM
You are correct about rights. It is always wrong for all governments to infringe upon peoples' natural rights.

However, the question is not just whether or not Chicago has the right to ban guns, in the sense that it is right for them to do that. It is definitely not right for them to do that. The question is whether or not the federal government has the right to intervene and stop them when they do that. And just as the basic question about the right to bear arms can be addressed as both a constitutional question and a natural rights question so can this one.

Constitutionally, does the Supreme Court have the right to interfere with a Chicago gun ban, I say, no it doesn't. I think the arguments people have put forward based on both the 14th Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution are incorrect.

However, let's just say for the sake of argument that either of those arguments were correct. Let's say that the Constitution did grant SCOTUS the power to strike down Chicago laws. One might still argue that it would be against natural rights for them to do that for the same reason that it goes against natural rights for us to intervene in Iraq. (I'm wishy washy about this personally, but for the sake of argument, it might go something like as follows.) You mention Hitler. Yes, Hitler was wrong. But the guilt for that wrong and the moral burden to correct it were born by the people of Germany, not by the rest of the world. Likewise, when Chicago passes a law infringing upon the rights of its citizens, it is not the case that any other government has the right to tax me in order to fund some operation of regime change or whatever else it might do in Chicago to rectify that. Natural rights demands a bottom up system where the individual (or I might prefer to say the family) is sovereign with respect to other individuals (or perhaps families) and with respect to the local government to which he has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting him. That local government, while subject to the individuals in its constituency, is sovereign with respect to other local governments elsewhere and with respect to the state government to which it has delegated certain roles in serving and protecting its constituents. That state government is subject to the individuals and the local governments that delegate their power to it, but it is sovereign with respect to the federal government to which it has delegated some roles.

The Constitution may or may not be in agreement with a bottom-up system of sovereignty like this. However, if it is not in agreement with it, then the necessary conclusion to an argument such as the preceding would be that to the degree that the Constitution diverges from that bottom-up system, the Constitution is wrong and should not be obeyed. So from a natural rights perspective, SCOTUS, by this reasoning, would be wrong to overturn a Chicago gun ban, and would be wrong even if it were acting constitutionally in so doing.

(I couldn't care less about the 14th A)

But how ecaxtly does the following:
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 notwithstanding.

Not indicate the relevance of the 2nd Amendment to the States?

This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land; the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Seems awfully clear to me. Let me read it again:

This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land; the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

followed by
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.

and further by:

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.

Seems to make the point abundantly clear.

We either obey the Constitution or we do not. We cannot obey the Constitution only when we agree with it, and then ignore it when we disagree. Either we obey ALL of the Constitution (even when it hurts) or we should admit that we are progressives who believe in a "living document" standard where the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to at the time.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:44 PM
The SCOTUS may only overturn those state and local laws contrary to the Constitution, it does not have the power to overturn any other state or local law - this is an important distiction that I think is being lost in the discussion.

This. x 53,000,000,000,000.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:46 PM
If I go to the library and show you the law that states had on their books, you will admit you are wrong?

if you go to the library and show me the laws that states had on their books to infringe on the RKBS, then I will agre with you that those states had laws which violated the US Constitution and should have been struch down by SCOTUS.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:48 PM
I'm a constitutionalists. You disagree with me on this issue.

I am a Constitutionalist (singular) and you disagree with me on this issue.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:50 PM
If you think a strong central government will ever be in your best interest in fighting tyranny, then I have to come out and say you are living in fantasy land.

Don’t think I called you insane though.

You've been calling everybody in this tread every name in the book who disagrees with you. :rolleyes:

Number19
03-05-2010, 03:51 PM
...If we are going by natural rights then a local government has no more right to take away your right to bear arms. Just because the tyranny has devolved does not make tyranny any more justified.This is inherently contradictory. You are saying that to support natural rights you have to deny natural rights. Or maybe what you consider a natural right is not a natural right.

I would ask, do individuals have an inherent natural right of free association?

If 1000 citizens are in 100% agreement and go off somewhere and form a community, do they have a right to do so?

Would these citizens, who are in agreement, have a right to organize this community's government in a way consistent with their beliefs?

Would you tell this community of individuals they do not have a right to pass an ordinance forbidding the possession of firearms within the limits of the community?

If this community of people, all in agreement, makes it illegal to "keep and bear" within the limits of that community and then at some future time, you move into that community, do you have a right to tell this community that you have an inalienable right to arm yourself?

Whose rights take precident?

erowe1
03-05-2010, 03:51 PM
The SCOTUS may only overturn those state and local laws contrary to the Constitution, it does not have the power to overturn any other state or local law - this is an important distiction that I think is being lost in the discussion.

Nowhere does the Constitution give SCOTUS the power to overturn any law at all, including unconstitutional ones, whether state or federal, for any reason.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 03:54 PM
Nowhere does the Constitution give SCOTUS the power to overturn any law at all, including unconstitutional ones, whether state or federal, for any reason.

So is it really the non binding arbitration office of the United States?

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:55 PM
Ron Paul does agree with me on this issue.

Tyranny is simply a product of man. I fear man that lives amongst me far less then man living in ivory towers in far off lands.

So my line is one based on reason and logic, not unicorns and magical text that prevents tyranny.

Don't you mean "I do agree with Ron Paul on this issue" or did Dr. Paul call you to consult on how he should respond to this first? :rolleyes:

Fella, you have been on some kind of monster ego-trip this whole thread, and in all the other threads where this topic has been discussed.

Oh yes massa, you are de gawd of us, you are de massa and we are all yer inowant underlings. :rolleyes:

Seems to me you have a lot of deeper issues than a mere misinterpretation of the US Constitution.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 03:55 PM
(I couldn't care less about the 14th A)

But how ecaxtly does the following:
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 notwithstanding.

Not indicate the relevance of the 2nd Amendment to the States?

This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land; the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Seems awfully clear to me. Let me read it again:

This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land; the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

followed by
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.

and further by:

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.

Seems to make the point abundantly clear.

We either obey the Constitution or we do not. We cannot obey the Constitution only when we agree with it, and then ignore it when we disagree. Either we obey ALL of the Constitution (even when it hurts) or we should admit that we are progressives who believe in a "living document" standard where the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to at the time.

All the bold and colors and repetition (which is repetition of repetition of what you've already said) is unnecessary. I get your point. I admit, it has some force to it. I hadn't looked at the Constitution this way, and I need to think about it. My understanding of the supremacy clause is that it prohibited states from making laws that got in the way of federal laws made in pursuance to the Constitution, not that the limitations which the Constitution placed on the federal government were to be extended as limitations placed on the state governments as well. But granted, the exact words of the 2nd amendment do not clearly say that they are limitations put only on the federal government, such as the way the exact words of the 1st amendment do say that.

So I get your argument, and the point of my post was not to argue against it. I'll need to look into this issue more.

But the part of my post you're replying to wasn't even the point of that post. That's why I went on to concede for the sake of argument that even if what you're saying about the Constitution is correct, it wouldn't make it the case that SCOTUS would be in its rights to overturn Chicago law for the reason I went on to state.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 03:55 PM
You've been calling everybody in this tread every name in the book who disagrees with you. :rolleyes:

what name did I call you?

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 03:57 PM
if you go to the library and show me the laws that states had on their books to infringe on the RKBS, then I will agre with you that those states had laws which violated the US Constitution and should have been struch down by SCOTUS.

just as I thought.

it took an entire new generation to reconstruct the constitution and get it right, because it is a living and breathing document.

Obviously I don't agree.

Number19
03-05-2010, 03:58 PM
Following state courts struck down state concealed carry laws based on the 2A of the US Constitution:

Bliss v. Kentucky (1822)
NC v Huntly (1842)
Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
Cockrum v. Texas (1859)


Before Civil War Reconstruction, the only case I know of a concealed carry law being upheld is Arkansas v. Buzzard (1842) as concealed carry restriction did not interfere with militia service

Texas reverses itself in 1872 with English v. Texas as the Texas post Civil War Constitution gives the legislature the power to regulate the wearing and carrying arms with a view to prevent crime.

Here is a later one I really find amusing:

In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun-while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [ State v. Nieto , 101 Ohio St. 409, 430, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).]
Thanks for this information. I'm always interested in these hard facts. I had been aware of Buzzard, but not the others.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 03:58 PM
This is inherently contradictory. You are saying that to support natural rights you have to deny natural rights. Or maybe what you consider a natural right is not a natural right.

I would ask, do individuals have an inherent natural right of free association?

If 1000 citizens are in 100% agreement and go off somewhere and form a community, do they have a right to do so?

Would these citizens, who are in agreement, have a right to organize this community's government in a way consistent with their beliefs?

Would you tell this community of individuals they do not have a right to pass an ordinance forbidding the possession of firearms within the limits of the community?

If this community of people, all in agreement, makes it illegal to "keep and bear" within the limits of that community and then at some future time, you move into that community, do you have a right to tell this community that you have an inalienable right to arm yourself?

Whose rights take precident?

Yes. If that community wanted to reserve the power to ban firearms, then they should never have become a party to the US Constitution wherein they agreed to forfeit any claim to such a power, and if they want to reserve the power NOW to ban firearms, then they need to secede from the union.

If 100% of all the people in a community wanted to abolish the right to trial by jury, then it would be the same story.

Certain powers are reserved by the US Constitution, and preserving the RKBA is one of them.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 03:59 PM
Don't you mean "I do agree with Ron Paul on this issue" or did Dr. Paul call you to consult on how he should respond to this first? :rolleyes:

Fella, you have been on some kind of monster ego-trip this whole thread, and in all the other threads where this topic has been discussed.

Oh yes massa, you are de gawd of us, you are de massa and we are all yer inowant underlings. :rolleyes:

Seems to me you have a lot of deeper issues than a mere misinterpretation of the US Constitution.

you seem obsessed now. forgive me for ignoring your straw men as I find them silly.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 03:59 PM
So is it really the non binding arbitration office of the United States?

Somewhat, at least to the extent that the powers the Constitution gives it could be described as the powers of a nonbinding arbitration office (which do not include the power to pass or repeal laws). It was understood as something pretty close to that when the Constitution was ratified.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html

And honestly, it really still is that. The only reason SCOTUS has the power it does today is because Congress and the states willfully choose to go along with its rulings, presumably because the people who elect them mostly like it that way. But if we changed our minds and elected a bunch of congressmen who would pass the We the People Act or the Sanctity of Life Act, or even if we just elected people to our state legislatures to pass laws that SCOTUS says they can't, then SCOTUS would be neutered.

If Chicago decided to thumb its nose at SCOTUS and ban guns, there's nothing SCOTUS could do about it, neither in the status quo nor according to the powers the Constitution gives it.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:00 PM
just as I thought.

it took an entire new generation to reconstruct the constitution and get it right, because it is a living and breathing document.

Obviously I don't agree.

Apparently you do agree that the Constitution is a living breathing document, because you are the one advocating for the position that it doesn't actually mean what it plainly says, or what the Founders intended.

I will stick with the original and plain meaning of the text, thank you very much. I am a Constitutional originalist, and I will be until the day I die.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:01 PM
you seem obsessed now. forgive me for ignoring your straw men as I find them silly.

The text of the Constitution is a strawman???? ROFLOLLMAO I've heard it ALL now!

Pericles
03-05-2010, 04:05 PM
Somewhat, at least to the extent that the powers the Constitution gives it could be described as the powers of a nonbinding arbitration office (which do not include the power to pass or repeal laws). It was understood as something pretty close to that when the Constitution was ratified.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html)

From the above document:

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

.........

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 04:07 PM
The text of the Constitution is a strawman???? ROFLOLLMAO I've heard it ALL now!

Ron Pauls agreement vs me , or my agreement with him is clearly the straw man I alluded to (I even quoted it)
'

your reading comprehension is suspect.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 04:08 PM
Following state courts struck down state concealed carry laws based on the 2A of the US Constitution:

Bliss v. Kentucky (1822)
NC v Huntly (1842)
Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
Cockrum v. Texas (1859)


Before Civil War Reconstruction, the only case I know of a concealed carry law being upheld is Arkansas v. Buzzard (1842) as concealed carry restriction did not interfere with militia service

Texas reverses itself in 1872 with English v. Texas as the Texas post Civil War Constitution gives the legislature the power to regulate the wearing and carrying arms with a view to prevent crime.

Here is a later one I really find amusing:

In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun-while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [ State v. Nieto , 101 Ohio St. 409, 430, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).]


Bliss v. Kentucky (1822) did not call upon the U.S. Constitution. It correctly used the Kentucky Constitution as justification.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 04:09 PM
But the fact is that several of the States had state religions at the time of ratification. The political mood of the time was in support of religious freedom and slowly, on their own by way of amending their state constitutions, these states came into agreement with the federal constitution's first amendment. Massachusetts was the last, maintaining it's state sanctioned religion until 1833.

And that's fine and dandy. And no, I don't believe that the bill of rights was intended to apply to the states, as originally written and adopted. That's why the 14th amendment was necessary.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 04:09 PM
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

He goes on to give the brief discussion which he said in this quote was called for. And in that brief discussion he clearly contradicts the notion that the court is superior.



The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.

But the overturning of laws is not.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 04:10 PM
Apparently you do agree that the Constitution is a living breathing document, because you are the one advocating for the position that it doesn't actually mean what it plainly says, or what the Founders intended.

I will stick with the original and plain meaning of the text, thank you very much. I am a Constitutional originalist, and I will be until the day I die.

hardly.

the constitution was clear enough to allow states to infringe on gun rights.

After 50 years of living and breathing, something magically changed.

Number19
03-05-2010, 04:12 PM
Yes. If that community wanted to reserve the power to ban firearms, then they should never have become a party to the US Constitution wherein they agreed to forfeit any claim to such a power, and if they want to reserve the power NOW to ban firearms, then they need to secede from the union.

If 100% of all the people in a community wanted to abolish the right to trial by jury, then it would be the same story.

Certain powers are reserved by the US Constitution, and preserving the RKBA is one of them.Good answer. I may not agree with it, but good answer. The validity of your response (in my opinion) depends on your right to secede.

But there is no more unclaimed territory on the face of the earth. If the government does not recognize my right to secede, then I am unable to go off with like minded individuals and form a libertarian community.

So, is there a natural right to secede? How is this right upheld/protected?

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:15 PM
what name did I call you?

You mean other than a federalist and an interventionist? Both lies, but hey. You go on to claim that I am ignoring and reconstricting the Constitution, again, both are lies, and as despicable as name-calling, but hey. You go on to accuse my of putting politics over the rule of law contained in the Constitution, again another lie, and just as despicable as name calling, but hey. You went on to call me unpopular and a waste of time, thereby demonstrating that YOU were the one playing politics (not me) but hey. You went on to claim that I suck ass, which is even worse than name-calling, but hey. You went on to call me unintelligent and bullshit, but hey. You went on to say that I lack readong comprehension but hey -- don't let the facts get in the way of a good smear-job.

You have been inordinately insulting in this and other threads on this topic, including calling Pericles "Cookoo" and "ignorant of common sense."

Seems to me that you are demonstrating your true nature here, and I want nothing to do with it.

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/2270/original/political-pictures-do-not-want-surprised-guy.jpg

Pericles
03-05-2010, 04:15 PM
Bliss v. Kentucky (1822) did not call upon the U.S. Constitution. It correctly used the Kentucky Constitution as justification.

So where are your numerous example of states regulating arms contrary to the 2A at the time the Constitution was adopted that have been upheld?

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 04:18 PM
You mean other than a federalist and an interventionist? Both lies, but hey. You go on to claim that I am ignoring and reconstricting the Constitution, again, both are lies, and as despicable as name-calling, but hey. You go on to accuse my of putting politics over the rule of law contained in the Constitution, again another lie, and just as despicable as name calling, but hey. You went on to call me unpopular and a waste of time, thereby demonstrating that YOU were the one playing politics (not me) but hey. You went on to claim that I suck ass, which is even worse than name-calling, but hey. You went on to call me unintelligent and bullshit, but hey -- don't let the facts get in the way of a good smear-job.

You have been inordinately insulting in this and other threads on this topic, including calling Pericles "Cookoo" and "ignorant of common sense."

Seems to me that you are demonstrating your true nature here, and I want nothing to do with it.

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/2270/original/political-pictures-do-not-want-surprised-guy.jpg


Federalist and interventionist is an apt label based on the views you expressed. Anybody can claim to be a constitutionalist, even Obama (and you)

As for others, I think they can fight their own battles.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 04:19 PM
Seems to me that you are demonstrating your true nature here, and I want nothing to do with it.

good to know. I'll be sure to stop donating to your campaign.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:23 PM
Good answer. I may not agree with it, but good answer. The validity of your response (in my opinion) depends on your right to secede.

But there is no more unclaimed territory on the face of the earth. If the government does not recognize my right to secede, then I am unable to go off with like minded individuals and form a libertarian community.

So, is there a natural right to secede? How is this right upheld/protected?

There certainly SHOULD be a right of secession for States who come to disagree with what the provisions of the Constitution dictate to parties thereof, and one could argue that there is an inherent right to secede based on the fact that joining the union was voluntary int he first place. Lincoln, apparently, would disagree -- and that is a tragedy that has led to our current debate.

The tyranny here is not found in too much obedience to the Constitution, but in too little. Obedience to the Constitution would seem to indicate the Federal Government's duty to protect American's against tyrannical states WRT gun bans, but if that obedience were FULL, then a State who disagrees should be free to secede. There is no clear "right to secede" in the Constitution, and that is a weakness in the document, but I believe that this right is implied by the voluntary nature of joining the union in the first place.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:26 PM
good to know. I'll be sure to stop donating to your campaign.

Fine, PM me your name and address and I'll even refund whatever you have given. Since according to you I am unintelligent and lack reading comprehension, I certainly wouldn't want it on your conscience to have helped elect a genuine Constitutionalist to public office (God forbid!)

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:29 PM
Federalist and interventionist is an apt label based on the views you expressed. Anybody can claim to be a constitutionalist, even Obama (and you)

As for others, I think they can fight their own battles.

And now you are defending your overt lies concerning me, and excusing your own abhorrent behavior towards others. Do please send me your name and address, because I have come to the conclusion that if you are going to be a despicable liar, then I don't even want your money.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 04:30 PM
Fine, PM me your name and address and I'll even refund whatever you have given. Since according to you I am unintelligent and lack reading comprehension, I certainly wouldn't want it on your conscience to have helped elect a genuine Constitutionalist to public office (God forbid!)

nope, you can keep the valentine day money bomb. it will be my last contribution

erowe1
03-05-2010, 04:37 PM
So where are your numerous example of states regulating arms contrary to the 2A at the time the Constitution was adopted that have been upheld?

I doubt that there are any, because no such laws would have been upheld. They would have been ruled unconstitutional because of being against the constitutions of the states in which they were passed but not because of being against the federal constitution, such as the example he gave.

The Chicago law is, incidentally, also contrary to the Illinois constitution. So even if we were dealing with courts ruling the way they did prior to 1925 when they first decided to claim that the bill of rights limited state governments the same way it limits the federal government, they could still have ruled against the ban on that basis.

I'm speaking somewhat rhetorically here, since I'm still undecided about Gunny's argument about Article VI. I do admit that the 2nd Amendment does not have the same language that clearly limits its application to the federal government the way the 1st Amendment does.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 04:45 PM
I doubt that there are any, because no such laws would have been upheld. They would have been ruled unconstitutional because of being against the constitutions of the states in which they were passed but not because of being against the federal constitution, such as the example he gave.

The Chicago law is, incidentally, also contrary to the Illinois constitution. So even if we were dealing with courts ruling the way they did prior to 1925 when they first decided to claim that the bill of rights limited state governments the same way it limits the federal government, they could still have ruled against the ban on that basis.

I'm speaking somewhat rhetorically here, since I'm still undecided about Gunny's argument about Article VI. I do admit that the 2nd Amendment does not have the same language that clearly limits its application to the federal government the way the 1st Amendment does.

I agree that we are unlikely to find one. Only after the 1860s did state constitutions start to mention what firearm restrictions the the legislative bodies could contemplate, and in reality, we are just now having it out as to whether those restriction might remain.

I would have preferred any challenge to be based on the Article VI supremacy clause, but that has been gutted via previous SCOTUS decisions, which leaves the least preferred method of incorporation via the 14A as has been done with other "fundamental rights" which have to meet the "strict scrutiny" test.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:45 PM
nope, you can keep the valentine day money bomb. it will be my last contribution

Never thought I'd become the target of vitriol on Ron Paul Forums for having the audacity to uphold and defend the US Constitution, and while I could take the Ron Paul approach and say that "I'd rather the campaign spend it to support the Constitution than someone else spend it to destroy it" like he did with Don Black, I would really rather maintain my intellectual integrity in this case. You obviously think I am an idiot, as you have made abundantly clear in this thread, and I would rather not burden someone with the belief that they have supported an idiot.

I will never back down from upholding and defending the US Constitution -- I swore an oath to defend it to my last breath and my last drop of blood. That apparently offends you, and with your having made that clear to me, so now your money offends me.

You are the one who made the campaign donation an issue here, not me, and if you think your threats will cause me to back down from upholding and defending the Constitution, buddy, then you've got another think coming.

You made the threat, now make good on it mister. My politics are driven by the Constitution, whether I get a half million dollars or zero dollars. Neither you, nor all the armies on planet earth will cause me to abrogate the Constitution which I have pledged myself to die to defend, and I will be DAMNED if I let some person jerk me around like some monkey on a string for want of a few FRN's.

This is pathetic. :mad:

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 04:50 PM
Never thought I'd become the target of vitriol on Ron Paul Forums for having the audacity to uphold and defend the US Constitution, and while I could take the Ron Paul approach and say that "I'd rather the campaign spend it to support the Constitution than someone else spend it to destroy it" like he did with Don Black, I would really rather maintain my intellectual integrity in this case. You obviously think I am an idiot, as you have made abundantly clear in this thread, and I would rather not burden someone with the belief that they have supported an idiot.

I will never back down from upholding and defending the US Constitution -- I swore an oath to defend it to my last breath and my last drop of blood. That apparently offends you, and with your having made that clear to me, so now your money offends me.

You are the one who made the campaign donation an issue here, not me, and if you think your threats will cause me to back down from upholding and defending the Constitution, buddy, then you've got another think coming.

You made the threat, now make good on it mister. My politics are driven by the Constitution, whether I get a half million dollars or zero dollars. Neither you, nor all the armies on planet earth will cause me to abrogate the Constitution which I have pledged myself to die to defend, and I will be DAMNED if I let some person jerk me around like some monkey on a string for want of a few FRN's.

This is pathetic. :mad:

Nothing you say or do offends me. I think you are off base and I said so. My views are based on the constitution as well.

From there, you spiraled out of control taking up the battle cry to defend not just your own honor, but the honor of others you perceived were slighted. You chose to take a heated discussion and snowball it into a personal war of competing egos.

Hell, you go as far as stating you don’t want a liars money. Unhinged is the best explanation I can give for this exchange.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 04:51 PM
The 14th amendment is what actually limits state government power, not the bill of rights. When interpreting "privileges/immunities", "due process" and "equal protection" the Supreme Court correctly looked to the bill of rights for guidance in determining what these terms meant.

This decision is simply a case where the court has determined that the right to bear arms is the type of important aspect of American citizenship that is protected by the 14th amendment, and as such is protected against state interference by the Constitution (via the 14th amendment). What basis do they have for saying that gun ownership is an important privilege/immunity (substantive due process)? The 2nd amendment, which clearly states the importance of gun ownership (or, conversely, the importance of restricting government power to undermine gun ownership).

This is not really a federalism issue. Congress has not acted. The executive branch has not acted. Congress gains no new power due to this decision. The executive branch gains no new power due to this decision. This is merely an issue of constitutional interpretation which has limited the power of the state. Net government power has decreased. There has been NO increase in government legal authority due to this case. There is no real reason for anyone to be upset about this case unless you are in favor of gun control or don't like the 14th amendment.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 04:53 PM
Nothing you say or do offends me. I think you are off base and I said so. My views are based on the constitution as well.

From there, you spiraled out of control taking up the battle cry to defend not just your own honor, but the honor of others you perceived were slighted. You chose to take a heated discussion and snowball it into a personal war of competing egos.

Hell, you go as far as stating you don’t want a liars money. Unhinged is the best explanation I can give for this exchange.

Before seriously annoying a US Marine, I would advise stockpiling nuclear weapons....:)

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 04:57 PM
Nothing you say or do offends me. I think you are off base and I said so. My views are based on the constitution as well.

From there, you spiraled out of control taking up the battle cry to defend not just your own honor, but the honor of others you perceived were slighted. You chose to take a heated discussion and snowball it into a personal war of competing egos.

Hell, you go as far as stating you don’t want a liars money. Unhinged is the best explanation I can give for this exchange.

Now you have added "unhinged" to the list of names you claim you haven't called me. The only ego here is yours. Most of the rest of us (aside from the hitler guy, but I believe that was blowback against you) -- including those on your side of the debate like erowe, have maintained their composure and sought to address this debate in a rational manner.

You, however, have been downright nasty the whole way through. Perhaps one day you will awaken to realize that, perhaps not. But it doesn't change the basic fact that you have been downright rude and nasty during the course of this entire debate, and then you stand back and wonder why people have gotten angry at you. You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. You might just see that those words of mine which have infuriated you the most were simply your own words parroted back to you...

erowe1
03-05-2010, 04:58 PM
Here's something interesting. The wording of the 4th Amendment is similar to that of the 2nd. It says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law..." the way the 1st Amendment does.

However, it wasn't until 1961 that the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in court for the states. (It had previously ruled that was the case for the federal government in 1914--nowhere does the 4th Amendment or anything else in the Constitution say such evidence is inadmissible in court.)

In Mapp v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio) SCOTUS ruled that the 4th Amendment (as interpreted in previous cases as making such evidence inadmissible in court) applied to states, on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

I would argue that this is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, since the 14th Amendment itself explicitly makes it Congress's job to enforce by appropriate legislation its provisions, and no such legislation had been passed by Congress applying the provisions of the 14th amendment to the use of warrants by the states. But it is interesting that, if Article VI really did mean what some are saying it meant for the 2nd Amendment, it would seem that it would have also meant that for the 4th. But apparently it took a very long time before the 4th would be applied to the states, and even then it was not on the basis of Article VI.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 05:01 PM
The 14th amendment is what actually limits state government power, not the bill of rights. When interpreting "privileges/immunities", "due process" and "equal protection" the Supreme Court correctly looked to the bill of rights for guidance in determining what these terms meant.

This decision is simply a case where the court has determined that the right to bear arms is the type of important aspect of American citizenship that is protected by the 14th amendment, and as such is protected against state interference by the Constitution (via the 14th amendment). What basis do they have for saying that gun ownership is an important privilege/immunity (substantive due process)? The 2nd amendment, which clearly states the importance of gun ownership (or, conversely, the importance of restricting government power to undermine gun ownership).

This is not really a federalism issue. Congress has not acted. The executive branch has not acted. Congress gains no new power due to this decision. The executive branch gains no new power due to this decision. This is merely an issue of constitutional interpretation which has limited the power of the state. Net government power has decreased. There has been NO increase in government legal authority due to this case. There is no real reason for anyone to be upset about this case unless you are in favor of gun control or don't like the 14th amendment.

This is a good point. While I agree with the conclusion, I hate, hate, hate the justification used. I do not like the 14th A, even though I do recognize that it is Constitutional law, and as I have said before -- we have a duty and and obligation to obey the Constitution "even when it hurts."

I, like Pericles, would much rather have seen the justification based on Article 6.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 05:03 PM
Here's something interesting. The wording of the 4th Amendment is similar to that of the 2nd. It says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law..." the way the 1st Amendment does.

However, it wasn't until 1961 that the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in court for the states. (It had previously ruled that was the case for the federal government in 1914--nowhere does the 4th Amendment or anything else in the Constitution say such evidence is inadmissible in court.)

In Mapp v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio) SCOTUS ruled that the 4th Amendment (as interpreted in previous cases as making such evidence inadmissible in court) applied to states, on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

I would argue that this is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. But it is interesting that, if Article VI really did mean what some are saying it meant for the 2nd Amendment, it would seem that it would have also meant that for the 4th. But apparently it took a very long time before the 4th would be applied to the states, and even then it was not on the basis of Article VI.

Had SCOTUS even heard a 4th A case from the States prior to 1961? There may not have been any "yes" decisions, but were there any prior "no" decisions? Absence of an answer is not, in and of itself, an answer. Could be that no such case was ever set before them. I'm asking because I genuinely do not know.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 05:05 PM
Had SCOTUS even heard a 4th A case from the States prior to 1961? There may not have been any "yes" decisions, but were there any prior "no" decisions? Absence of an answer is not, in and of itself, an answer. Could be that no such case was every set before them. I'm asking because I genuinely do not know.

Those are fair points. I don't know either.

Pericles
03-05-2010, 05:06 PM
Here's something interesting. The wording of the 4th Amendment is similar to that of the 2nd. It says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law..." the way the 1st Amendment does.

However, it wasn't until 1961 that the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in court for the states. (It had previously ruled that was the case for the federal government in 1914--nowhere does the 4th Amendment or anything else in the Constitution say such evidence is inadmissible in court.)

In Mapp v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio) SCOTUS ruled that the 4th Amendment (as interpreted in previous cases as making such evidence inadmissible in court) applied to states, on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

I would argue that this is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. But it is interesting that, if Article VI really did mean what some are saying it meant for the 2nd Amendment, it would seem that it would have also meant that for the 4th. But apparently it took a very long time before the 4th would be applied to the states, and even then it was not on the basis of Article VI.

That is correct - but very few cases make it to the SCOTUS, and the controversy has to be substantial. What would be really interesting is the inadmissable evidence cases that are clearly contrary to 4A protection that did not get federal review or conviction tossed by a state court.

When state courts make rulings consistent with the BoR, there is no real controversy, so would be unlikely to get federal court review.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 05:12 PM
Now you have added "unhinged" to the list of names you claim you haven't called me. The only ego here is yours. Most of the rest of us (aside from the hitler guy, but I believe that was blowback against you) -- including those on your side of the debate like erowe, have maintained their composure and sought to address this debate in a rational manner.

You, however, have been downright nasty the whole way through. Perhaps one day you will awaken to realize that, perhaps not. But it doesn't change the basic fact that you have been downright rude and nasty during the course of this entire debate, and then you stand back and wonder why people have gotten angry at you. You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. You might just see that those words of mine which have infuriated you the most were simply your own words parroted back to you...

I was not the first person in this thread to personally insult others and I wasn't the last either.

You are correct in that Erowe conducted himself with class in this thread though.

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 05:14 PM
Before seriously annoying a US Marine, I would advise stockpiling nuclear weapons....:)

I've met this particular marine in person already.

Trust me, even money would be on me. :D

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 05:21 PM
I've met this particular marine in person already.

Trust me, even money would be on me. :D

/me just shakes his head

I remember when I was younger, and I had this little hopped up Honda. It was pretty quick, but it certainly wasn't the fastest car on the road. I felt some strange need to prove myself by racing people as often as I could. Later in life, when I had a Mitsubishi 3000GTVR4 and even later when I bought a deeply modified Acura RSX Type S, it was obvious to me that my car was significantly faster than almost every car on the road, and somehow I no longer felt a need to prove myself, and no longer even felt a desire to race people on the streets at all...

Vessol
03-05-2010, 05:23 PM
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.

I'm all for State rights, but the States do not have the right to violate the Constitution IMO. Revisionist BS IMO, the States do not have the right to take away free speech or the right to bear arms.

GunnyFreedom
03-05-2010, 05:26 PM
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.

I'm all for State rights, but the States do not have the right to violate the Constitution IMO. Revisionist BS IMO, the States do not have the right to take away free speech or the right to bear arms.

Exactly! This is why I am befuddled that there is even a controversy here.

The controversy that SHOULD exist surrounding the SCOTUS decision, is not whether they reached the correct conclusion, but whether they used the right justification. The 14th Amendment, IMHO, was the wrong justification.

erowe1
03-05-2010, 05:34 PM
Following state courts struck down state concealed carry laws based on the 2A of the US Constitution:

Bliss v. Kentucky (1822)
NC v Huntly (1842)
Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
Cockrum v. Texas (1859)


It looks to me like Bliss v. Commonwealth was a ruling based solely on the Kentucky constitution, not the US Constitution.
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/12ky90.html

In skimming State v. Robert S. Huntley, I also don't see where it struck down a state law on the basis of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. If I'm missing it, perhaps you can quote the part.
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html

However, the Nunn v. Georgia ruling directly addresses the question at hand. The judge says:

I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States. The court held otherwise, however, in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (18 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says: "The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision: 'Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals, whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that that Constitution 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 not withstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence."

The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning.
It doesn't end there, and you might want to read how it continues. But suffice it to say, there was some debate then as to whether the Bill of Rights applied to the states, at least in those portions of it which, like the 2nd amendment, expressed themselves in universal language (unlike the 1st amendment, for example). This judge says they did, others before him had taken both sides on the question. He doesn't explicitly cite Article VI (or if he does I missed it). But it seems clear that he has it in mind.
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/1ga243.html

ARealConservative
03-05-2010, 05:37 PM
/me just shakes his head

I remember when I was younger, and I had this little hopped up Honda. It was pretty quick, but it certainly wasn't the fastest car on the road. I felt some strange need to prove myself by racing people as often as I could. Later in life, when I had a Mitsubishi 3000GTVR4 and even later when I bought a deeply modified Acura RSX Type S, it was obvious to me that my car was significantly faster than almost every car on the road, and somehow I no longer felt a need to prove myself, and no longer even felt a desire to race people on the streets at all...

lol.

my actual point is we have met face to face - in Minneapolis to be exact.

And if we had this conversation in person, I wouldn't of shied away from calling your views interventionist, or federalist by nature. That is not a personal attack on you, it is an attack of the views you espouse.

RedStripe
03-05-2010, 05:41 PM
the 14th Amendment itself explicitly makes it Congress's job to enforce by appropriate legislation its provisions,

I know this is beating a dead horse, but I can't help but correct you on this. You are simply totally and completely wrong about that. While the 14th amendment does grant Congress authority to create legislation ("The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."), no where in the amendment is congress "explicitly" required to do anything whatsoever. The fact is, the "No State shall..." is not conditioned upon anything at all - just like the language of the first amendment which likewise does not require an act of congress to give it the force of law.

"No state shall..." = "Congress shall make no law..."

Besides, Congress HAS passed legislation pursuant to section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which allows individuals to bring suit against state actors for violating Constitutional rights (the ones guaranteed by the 14th amendment). Look it up: 42 U.S.C. § 1983