Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick
The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
In a letter sent earlier this month to David Codrea, co-founder of Citizens of America, a California-based gun-rights organization, Lockyer said that while his duty is to enforce the laws of his state and the nation, "the responsibilities of my office do not permit me to independently interpret the state and federal Constitutions or the statutes written pursuant to those Constitutions."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29009
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Backwards. Mob rule is the absence of law.
"And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world." -- John Locke"
The 14th binds the states to the BOR.
How far could a Libertarian "judge" carry that? Carte blanche?
No further than a judge can carry judicial interpretation now. The forms of libertarianism that I have found compelling have not argued for any dramatic change in the manner of operation of government.
If you are talking about Supreme or Appeals Court judges, I would think they would still be bound by the Constitution; I have never heard of a libertarian arguing for anything else.
FYI, there appears to be no evidence Jefferson ever said/wrote that.
It is the difference between logical and rational; legal and right. He's having a different argument than many here are.
This will require networking my FRiend. We need a hand shake based association of defensive trust. The idea can be promoted on the internet but the only way it could work is if it works for you and me locally. If you don't know them, I mean realy know them, then you can't trust your life to them when you have guns and "defense" in the mix.
It must be low profile, and it must be for mutual defence only. Not offence, not a rebel army! We cannot just kill any cop that comes to our door. There must be some kind of code of honor for this to work.. This would require a lot of drafting. But it must be as short as possible, easily understood, and with limited purpose.
Well,among the powers delegated were some that resricted the power of the states(of course the 10th amendment,as well as Art,IV,sec 4 that guarantees a republican form of government to each state).
Anarchy is the abscence of law. Mob rule is not a synonym for anarchy. Therefore mob rule is not the abscence of law. Mob rule is a controlling rule, guided by the motivations of the controlling group, without regard to any general principles concerning the interests of others. Anarchy is a social condition where there is no definite ruler, controlling group, or authority.
Without placing conditions and constraints upon the Locke quote in 178. That collection of freemen establishing rule, could be a mob. As occurred in the French Revolution. Rule has the power of law, so long as the rulers exert themselves and are not successfully unopposed.
I've given up trying to talk to this guy. He almost makes me miss Dane.
The 10th amendment doesn't actually restrict any powers of the states. Yes, it makes reference to other parts of the Constitution which do so, but it doesn't actually impose any such restrictions itself.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
Because driving on state highways is a priveledge, not a right.
You have a choice when it comes to traffic court, play by their rules or surrender your driver's license.
The 2nd Ammendment is a right, not a priveledge to be portioned out by some dim bulb politician.
Amendment XIV: ... No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
When this was passed, it was stated that the "priveledges or immunities" included those rights protected by the first 9 articles of amendment to the constitution, most specifically the 2nd. At the time the southern states were enforcing gun control on the newly freed colored population, and to stop that practice was one of the main reasons for the 14th amendment.
Right O. The case hinged on whether a sawed-off shotgun was an appropriate 'militia' weapon. They ruled not.
Intesting today that many police departments and Special Forces have found uses for shotguns with -18" barrels.
"[The first step is] to concur in a declaration of rights, at least, so that the nation may be acknowledged to have some fundamental rights not alterable by their ordinary legislature, and that this may form a ground work for future improvements."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1788. ME 7:18, Papers 13:190
But they don't have to. The "incorporation doctrine, mostly a way to avoid the requirements of the 14th amendment, has used the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment. The court has pretty much ignored the "privelidges and immunities clause. The second amendment is an "immunity" within the context of the 14th amendent.
Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?
Because, strictly speaking traffic court is not a criminal court, nor is it a suit at common law, which via the 6th and 7th amendments require a jury trial (if the accused or object of the suit want one that is)
Under this line of reasoning, the state could ignore the First Amendment and establish Islam as the official religion of the state. Practicing other religions in that state would be illegal, as long as that state's supreme court says it is.
HURRAH! Thank God!
I was beginning to think that I alone understood this fact!
EVERY member of Congress and the President are required, by the Constitution itself, to swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies both foreign and domestic EACH time they are elected. WHAT could the purpose of the founders have been in that requirement if not to remind each and every one of them that they themselves are to function as arbitors of the Constitution?
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.