Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The U.S. Constitution [Misinterpreted] Online
USConstitution.net ^ | 4/9/04 | steve mount

Posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine

This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.
Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."

It is incredible, seeing the author completely ignores the supremacy clause in Art. VI.

He then goes on to bash our 2nd Amendment:

"Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill - this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation.
Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully.


Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution.
After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."

Know you enemy.. This man Steve Mount is NOT a friend of our Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 481-500 next last
To: Ken H
"Also, would a USSC interpretation that says the Second Amendment applies to the States"

Kind of, "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 by the state."

The state shall not interfere with the people forming a state militia to protect the security of a free state? I think the Founding Fathers would have found that interpretation ludicrous.

301 posted on 07/18/2004 2:34:00 PM PDT by robertpaulsen ("Ludicrous speed!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Wow, what a simple bung-hole this author Steve Mount is! Hunting? Collecting? Self-defense? What does any of that have to do with overthrowing a (possible future) tyrannical government by force?


302 posted on 07/18/2004 2:41:16 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"with Federal anti-gun laws, passed under the Commerce Clause, which do infringe the RKBA for Virginians."

As long as those federal laws do not violate the second amnendment, Virginia is bound by them.

I say Federal anti-gun laws do infringe on the RKBA mentioned in the second amendment. But, since the Gun Control Act of 1968, we have yet to see a challenge. I wonder why not.

303 posted on 07/18/2004 2:47:24 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"How would Virginians' RKBA be made less secure by having the Second Amendment apply to Virginia?"

"How are ANY of our Rights "infringed" or reduced by having our central government say that no State, nor the FedGov itself, may remove full use of that Right save by due process from criminal proceedings in court?"

Very simple. Congress can ban handguns -- the USSC then decides that "arms" as defined in the second amendment excludes handguns. Since the second amendment applies now to Virginia, turn 'em in.

But... but... Congress wouldn't do that robertpaulsen! Yeah, and Congress wouldn't ban "assault-style" weapons either.

304 posted on 07/18/2004 2:57:05 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Also, would a USSC interpretation that says the Second Amendment applies to the States make the RKBA of Virginians less secure? [paulsen conveniently leaves out the underlined portion]

Kind of, "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 by the state."

The state shall not interfere with the people forming a state militia to protect the security of a free state? I think the Founding Fathers would have found that interpretation ludicrous.

How about addressing the question, which was:

Would a USSC interpretation that says the Second Amendment applies to the States make the RKBA of Virginians less secure?

305 posted on 07/18/2004 3:14:45 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"Congress can ban handguns"


Bumpkin.


306 posted on 07/18/2004 3:24:21 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I say Federal anti-gun laws do infringe on the RKBA mentioned in the second amendment.

What about Congress' power under the Commerce Clause? Are you trying to undermine that power?

Or do you agree with Justice Clarence Thomas that the Second Amendment means the RKBA is a personal right?

Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right.

--Justice Clarence Thomas, Printz vs US

307 posted on 07/18/2004 3:24:58 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Isn't it amazing what passes itself off as 'Constitutional' these days?


308 posted on 07/18/2004 3:27:42 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Congress can ban handguns -- the USSC then decides that "arms" as defined in the second amendment excludes handguns. Since the second amendment applies now to Virginia, turn 'em in.

I see. Since the Second Amendment is not incorporated, the 1994 AW ban does not apply to Virginia.

However, if the Second Amendment were incorporated, the 1994 AW ban would apply to Virginia.

Your grasp of the Constitution continues to amaze.

309 posted on 07/18/2004 3:34:39 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"What about Congress' power under the Commerce Clause? Are you trying to undermine that power?"

If the statute passed under that power violates the U.S. Constitution, you bet I am.

"Or do you agree with Justice Clarence Thomas that the Second Amendment means the RKBA is a personal right?"

First, I'd like to see the "growing body of scholarly commentary". Second, that "growing body of scholarly commentary" means diddley squat when it comes to legislation and court rulings (ie., the things that do matter).

And third, I sure do wish that Justice Thomas would spend less time convincing the public of his position and more time convincing his fellow Justices TO ACCEPT A RKBA CASE.

310 posted on 07/18/2004 3:40:54 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

I sure do wish that Justice Thomas would spend less time convincing the public of his position and more time convincing his fellow Justices TO ACCEPT A RKBA CASE.
310 -bumpkinrob-

______________________________________


Maybe you'll get lucky and Congress will ban handguns, rob.


311 posted on 07/18/2004 3:46:25 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
What does the 1994 AWB have to do with the second amendment?

Your grasp of Congressional law continues to amaze.

312 posted on 07/18/2004 3:47:46 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

robertpaulsen wrote:

What does the 1994 AWB have to do with the second amendment?

______________________________________


It's an infringement.


313 posted on 07/18/2004 3:56:46 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
What does the 1994 AWB have to do with the second amendment?

Ask robertpaulsen, who wrote this in post #303:

I say Federal anti-gun laws do infringe on the RKBA mentioned in the second amendment.

314 posted on 07/18/2004 4:02:18 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
What do the courts say the 1994 AWB has to do with the second amendment, numbnuts?

They're the ones who will be influencing Virginia's RKBA, not me.

315 posted on 07/18/2004 4:08:48 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"It's an infringement."

I think so, too. But we don't count.

What did the court say about the 1994 AWB with respect to the second amendment? (Answer: Nothing)

316 posted on 07/18/2004 4:11:04 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen wrote:
"It's an infringement."
I think so, too. But we don't count.

_____________________________________


I count, paulsen.

You like to think we don't, and that's just another one of your weird symptoms.

BTW, - I'm presently engaged arguing with a shrink on another thread.. Would you like an introduction, rob?
317 posted on 07/18/2004 4:22:31 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"I'm presently engaged arguing with a shrink on another thread"

Don't argue. Do what he says.

318 posted on 07/18/2004 4:44:26 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I'm presently engaged arguing with a shrink on another thread.

Don't argue. Do what he says.

Sorry rob, but he is trying to convince me that:

"Literally hundreds of thousands of people today are being killed, brutalized, sold as slaves, imprisoned, tortured, threatened, discriminated against and arrested solely because they are Christians."

319 posted on 07/18/2004 5:17:19 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Very simple. Congress can ban handguns -- the USSC then decides that "arms" as defined in the second amendment excludes handguns. Since the second amendment applies now to Virginia, turn 'em in.

And if they do so, does that make them Right? Or in Error? What is the publics last recourse against governmental tyranny?

You are hopeless...

320 posted on 07/18/2004 6:30:10 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 481-500 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson