Posted on 03/22/2011 5:36:03 AM PDT by marktwain
>>”This is incorrect. Federal law does NOT trump State law...”
>
>Yes, Federal Law DOES trump State Law when its Constitutionally Sound Law.
You put the emphasis on the wrong spot: it should be on the *WHEN*; many, in fact it is likely most, federal laws are not Constitutional.
Even those that “have been held to be Constitutional” like the ATF’s “legitimacy” or regulation of intra-state commerce under the ‘commerce clause.’
>Too many liberals use this tactic to subvert the Constitution.
>Example: Gun Laws by states infringing the 2nd Amendment.
And if you had bothered to read past that to the example I gave concerning my State and ITS Constitution you would see that there are State Laws which subvert the State Constitution; this is not merely a National Constitution issue: it is that the governments at all levels see free to ignore the Constitutions which bind them.
Furthermore, as I’ve said, I would have multiple/redundant guarantees on my freedoms/rights than one single point which can be compromised.
Its called the "slippery slope" for a reason.
Once you legally give standing to an entity to write Constitutional Law ( say a State Reaffirming the Right to keep and Bear Arms) then you allow lawyers leeway to widen that legal scope and all of the Sudden State Law overrides the Constitution. This is exactly how we ended up where we are with libtards making places like NYC a haven for armed criminals while citizens who wish to stay out of jail must not protect themselves with firearms.
>>”Furthermore, as I’ve said, I would have multiple/redundant guarantees on my freedoms/rights than one single point which can be compromised.”
>
>Its called the “slippery slope” for a reason.
>
>Once you legally give standing to an entity to write Constitutional Law ( say a State Reaffirming the Right to keep and Bear Arms) then you allow lawyers leeway to widen that legal scope and all of the Sudden State Law overrides the Constitution.
...have you EVER heard of the 9th and 10th Amendments?
Virtually all of the signatory States ALREADY HAD State Constitutions! The US Constitution even mentions this in Paragraph 2 of Art 6:
“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.”
>This is exactly how we ended up where we are with libtards making places like NYC a haven for armed criminals while citizens who wish to stay out of jail must not protect themselves with firearms.
Really?
Can you show me the portion in the NY [or NJ] Constitution where it explicitly restricts the right to keep and bear arms?
Also, the Constitution[s] do *NOT* grant people rights and cannot therefore be construed to deny the rights of people, they affirm and publicly acknowledge PRE-EXISTING rights in regard to the people. The only ‘rights’ that the Constitution ‘grants’ are those the people allow the Government/
Strawman much? I never said anything about state Constitutions.
You claim reaffirmation By States in the form of writing laws already addressed in the Constitution was a good thing.
I pointed out that allowing such gives legal standing and precedent which is used by Lib lawyers to move us further down the Slippery Slope.
BTW you will note that the Tehth Amendment also denotes that the States have purview over all things that are not denoted in the Constitution. Which also tells us they have no right or standing to write law which is covered by the Constitution. And BTW you treatise on what the Constitution states or affirms is a redundacy and you would have known such IF you had carefully read post 31: "The 2nd Amendment affirms we the citizens have a right to defend ourselves by use of arms."
>>”Can you show me the portion in the NY [or NJ] Constitution where it explicitly restricts the right to keep and bear arms?”
>
>Strawman much? I never said anything about state Constitutions.
You did: “Once you legally give standing to an entity to write Constitutional Law (say a State Reaffirming the Right to keep and Bear Arms) then you allow lawyers leeway to widen that legal scope and all of the Sudden State Law overrides the Constitution.”
>I pointed out that allowing such gives legal standing and precedent which is used by Lib lawyers to move us further down the Slippery Slope.
“Precedent” and Constitutional Law are two VERY different beasts.
‘Precedent’ *spit* is nothing more than the Judiciary playing the children’s game “telephone” with your [legal] rights.
(”Well, Judge Ass McHattery said that you cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater because riots would ensue, so one cannot criticize politicians in ‘town hall’ meetings as riots may ensue.”) — BTW, the correct interpretation is not to say that “free speech” is limited, but to say that injuries resultant from actions are culpable to the actor (you are perfectly free to slander, or to perjure, but those can/should carry consequences)... though maybe such act is justified, such as there actually being a fire.
Constitutional Law, on the other hand, is *exactly* like the illustration I showed of the contradiction between State Statute and State Constitution: the only thing that needs to be done is to *gasp* Read The Actual Law [Constitution].
>BTW you will note that the Tehth Amendment also denotes that the States have purview over all things that are not denoted in the Constitution. Which also tells us they have no right or standing to write law which is covered by the Constitution.
Not exactly; just because a right/obligation has been given to the Federal Government does not invalidate such by the States or People. An excellent example is the Militia; the Militia are controlled by the State/People and are military in nature BUT the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to create/operate military power. (There is a difference between Army and Naval forces in the Constitution, but that is less important to explore at the moment.) Or would you declare that state/people controlled militia are contra-constitutional?
Another, related point, is Art 4 Sec 4; wherein the Federal government GUARANTEES the States protection from invasion. Does this invalidate any State-based defense against an invasion, like the National Guard?
Yes and that has f***all to do with the matter at hand. Precedent is used all of the time when the Supreme Court hears cases. Precedent is the "meat" lawyers make a living on.
"Another, related point, is Art 4 Sec 4; wherein the Federal government GUARANTEES the States protection from invasion. Does this invalidate any State-based defense against an invasion, like the National Guard?"
I'll Refer you to the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
The Constitution by way of the 2nd Amendment gives the States the ability to have a well Regulated Militia for self defense(That was how Militias were formed by States and Towns) So your example would be in error.
>>”Another, related point, is Art 4 Sec 4; wherein the Federal government GUARANTEES the States protection from invasion. Does this invalidate any State-based defense against an invasion, like the National Guard?”
>
>I’ll Refer you to the 2nd Amendment:
> “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.”
>
>The Constitution by way of the 2nd Amendment gives the States the ability to have a well Regulated Militia for self defense(That was how Militias were formed by States and Towns) So your example would be in error.
If the 2nd Amendment gives the States the rights to form militias, then how does it also recognize the people as having the right to keep and bear arms?
A rephrase of the 2nd could be: “Whereas a militia is necessary to the security and freedom of a State, the people’s right to own, carry, and use arms shall not be impugned.”
That, in itself, certainly does NOT give the States the ability to form militias... though it does affirm that the *PEOPLE* can, and that for that reason the entire right to keep and bear arms should not be impaired.
>>“Precedent” and Constitutional Law are two VERY different beasts.”
>
>Yes and that has f***all to do with the matter at hand. Precedent is used all of the time when the Supreme Court hears cases. Precedent is the “meat” lawyers make a living on.
And that is exactly *WHY* is is so horrid: it is the elevation of ‘tradition’ {what we’ve done before} above that which the law ACTUALLY SAYS.
Once ‘Tradition’ is acknowledged as even being equal [to the Law] it actually assumes a form of supremacy: the judges/lawyers can keep the cycle going until violations of tradition are just as serious as crimes.
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.