Posted on 05/10/2014 11:00:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Thank you and I am corrected. It would have helped had I read the underlined last sentence from the Amendment before posting.
If I had a nickel for all the times that I’ve done the same thing.............;-)
so the feds cannot violate the bill of rights, but the states can.
Doesn’t make sense.
Why all the restrictions on things like local police activities, cruel and unusual, need for warrants etc?
...and as that applies to me as well, we would both be independently wealthy.
Wouldn’t that be nice? :-)
The bastard is there to stay for 2 years or more if he so chooses.
Oh, yes it would my FRiend.
You don't like what ruling?
The house must meet its responsibility. Let the senate do what they’ll do.
Sorry about the caps. I was being emotional and feeling frustrated about the whole mess America is in at the time. Yes, I would rather Boehnor bring Articles of Impeachment against the arrogant jackass instead of the lawsuit he is threatening. Of course we would be totally in favor of impeachment. And, it is the responsibility of the House to do it. As opposed to clinton’s impeachment, the house has a strong leg to stand on for an Article regarding Abuse of Power. Then it would fall far short in the sinate and the Republicans would be the big hate mongers and racists as usual. That would be the result. Then he would really accelerate his dictatorial actions, knowing he can never be removed from office for at least the remainder of his term.
No problem
freepgards
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the 2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [state laws regulating the conduct of public parades] do not have this effect.Federal courts deliberately ignored this part of the Presser case, even stating that the case stands for the exact OPPOSITE proposition. Such is the mendacity of the federal courts vs. the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS knew this was going on, too, and chose to allow it to continue for decades. To this day, the "law" (as asserted by the mendacious courts) is that Presser stood for the proposition that states could infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
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.