Sotomayor Guns For 2nd Amendment (CORRECTED)

Investor's Business Daily ^ | June 4, 2009 | Editorial

[Mr. Blonde]

I don’t know why they chose to go by selective incorporation, but they did. Wikipedia tells me the chief writer of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, and Hugo Black both agree with you. Apparently they wanted a measured response that only those rights whose abridgment would “shock the conscience” be incorporated. Might be just a function of different times.

It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

The point is thzt the federal government wants to pick and choose when it comes to constitutional issues. The Bill of Rights addresses issues that have been major bones of contention throughout recorded history, with a view toward settling them once and for all. It isn't hard to see that governemt may resent any restrictions on it's actions, and it is foolish to allow government to define it's own limits. The same must be said about the potential excesses of democracy.

The Founders intent was a bulwark between the power of government, and the whims of popular opinion, and the rights of an individual citizen.

Any reading of the Bill of Rights counter to this is invalid, whether it comes from a court, or not.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine". Thomas Jefferson

[Tublecane]

“It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area.”

I find myself bending that way. Then I ask, if it’s assumed that everything not specified as pertaining to the state pertains to the federal government (which would only make sense, since it is the federal Constitution), then why does the first amendment bother to say, “Congress shall make no law...” That’s never been answered to my satisfaction.

[Mr. Blonde]

How many others do? I’m on my phone but it doesn’t seem to mention the federal government specifically. I think the answer is that it is the founding document of the federal government so when speaking about the states it must mention them. The amendments are of course negotiated so it could have just been an oddity of that particular negotiation.

[itsahoot]

“The requested document does not exist on this server.”

Strange, it was a link to this very thread.

[Cboldt]

--It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area. --

But not completely free.

This "state citizen doesn't have the right until it's incorporated" is obviously BS from the courts. What, the citizens didn't have the right before the 14th was passed? That's illogical.

Rights don't flow from the people, to the states, then to the fed, to be doled back out to the people as the feds see fit. The RKBA exists independently of the 2nd amendment. Massive confusion because the words, RKBA, appear in the 2nd amendment, and people figure that if they don't get the 2nd amendment, they don't get RKBA. But RKBA is found in other places.

Too bad, the people run to poppa fed instead of holding their state and local despots feet to the fire. Before they know it, all their "rights and privileges" are going to be what the feds dictate. You wish for incorporation? Careful what you wish for.

[Mojave]

Strange, it was a link to this very thread.

It's not. Click it.