Posted on 06/14/2015 5:57:51 AM PDT by marktwain
I’ll still carry. :)
So—Will taxpayer funding of the St. Louis zoo be withheld during the period that the restraining order is in effect?
The right shall not be infringed.
Not by the feds.
Not by the state.
Not by the city.
Not by the business.
The right shall not be infringed.
Wrong - the right shall not be infringed by the Federal Government. Businesses can infringe all they want.
Technically, your reading of it is correct. I think any court is likely to say that you are right and I am wrong.
But I will say this:
Government ought to protect We The People from fraud and coercion. Our God-given rights should be protected by the government. The constitution is a document which limits government so that government cannot become too powerful while it "protects" us -- because then the solution becomes the problem.
The First Amendment specifically limits Congress. It says it right there: "Congress shall make no law ..."
But that's followed directly by the Second Amendment: "The right shall not be infringed ...". Clearly this is a universal protection, not a limit on Congress or on any other particular body. It blocks ANYONE from infringing on our God-given right to self-defense. The power of government (the courts) should ensure that NO ONE infringes the right.
Now, having ranted on that point a bit, I will admit once again that any court is likely to say that you are right and I am wrong.
Well when it comes to the states being bound by the constitution, the courts initially thought I was right and you were wrong. Then the legal principle of “incorporation” (google it) kicked in over the past 100 or so years and things have swung so that you are right and I am wrong.
I am opposed to incorporation and I think that the states should be allowed to restrict any rights that the want to restrict.
I do seem to remember national stories about out of control crowds at the zoo more than once.
The St. Louis Zoo is a political entity of the Government.
It is not a private business.
Many “infringements” exist and are upheld in the law, as this will be.
“Well when it comes to the states being bound by the constitution, the courts initially thought I was right and you were wrong. Then the legal principle of “incorporation” (google it) kicked in over the past 100 or so years and things have swung so that you are right and I am wrong.”
When it comes to the Second Amendment, the courts thought you were wrong before they thought you were right. Courts ruled that the Second Amendment restricted the States up until 1830 or so. Then the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not restrict the States.
So you have the period between about 1830 to 1865 where you were correct. Then we get into the whole mess about the 14th Amendment, and the Courts refusal to enforce much of it for what... a hundred years?
An entity of the State government - not the federal government.
We discussed “incorporation” and other things related to the constitution and the states in this thread.
He’s gonna need one.
The taxpayer funded zoo ain’t a business.
I agree with that. People would move to "the best" states and it would work itself out, I think. But, alas, it's all pretty much the same wherever you go nowadays.
I say yes and yes. The courts say no and no. Read about “incorporation”.
I agree with that. People would move to "the best" states and it would work itself out, I think. But, alas, it's all pretty much the same wherever you go nowadays.
This would lead to chaos and anarchy. There is a good reason that the constitution says each state must give "full faith and credit" to the laws of each other state. Doing it like you guys think would be like having 50 separate countries, loosely affiliated.
Of course, in some ways this is what we have right now.
Driving is not an enumerated right, but all states have Driver License reciprocity. RKBA is an enumerated right, but CCW reciprocity is optional, and many states (NY, NJ, CA for example) have no reciprocity, and even severely restrict their own citizens.
The problem with thinking that people would move to the "best" states is that states with larger economies, where the jobs are, have developed majorities who are anti-rights in many areas, not just RKBA. "Voting with your feet" has never been easy, and it requires great sacrifices in many cases.
One of the primary purposes of the constitution was to protect minority rights. A majority can always protect their own rights, but minorities are always endangered. Not just visually identifiable minorities, but those who are religious, philosophical, or life-style minorities. If we are one country, we need to have one set of rules for many things. I am a proponent of state's rights in many areas, but not when it impacts my enumerated rights.
Allow me to go on record and say it clearly: I would like to have 50 separate countries, loosely affiliated.
Sort of like the British Commenonwealth. What differentiates your preference from them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.