This is a wonderful topic, one that helps to delineate between conservatives and libertarians. I would beware of a man who says he is conservative or wants to champion liberties and yet keeps voting for bigger and bigger government, more thousands of pages of regulations (each having the weight of law) published each week in the Federal Register, and perpetuating a tax system that destroys financial privacy. Yes, indeed, I would be very wary of such a person.
Putting that aside, you have told me a question: what exactly does the Federal Constitution do? How does one re-interpret the federal Constitution, a document that regulates the relationship of each state to the other and to the federal government, as well as each citizen in regards to the federal government, so that it now has a hand that can reach inside of a state and touch a citizen in a matter or dispute that may only take place within the boundaries of the man’s own back yard, or on his back porch, even where the subject of the enforcement action was acting totally alone and without the knowledge of any other person?
Was it, for example “intended to protect our individual rights from state or local government infringements”, even though to this very day, while the Supreme Court has expanded free speech to include nude dancing and flag burning, and they have extended the First Amendment to the whole of state and local government through the doctrine of “incorporation”, they have not yet seen fit to give the same expansive incorporation to the Second Amendment?
The Federal Supreme Court did not utter a peep when the Supreme Court of California declared there was no right to keep and bear arms in that State’s Constitution.
But the same federal Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that there was a federal nexus and the federal government had jurisdiction to prohibit growing of pot in a person’s own backyard, with seeds and soil that had not crossed any state line. If they can do this with pot, they can do this with life-saving cancer medicine and they can do this with home-made firearms.
But, as James Madison, the acknowledged father of the document is quotes as having said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution.” It is interesting to note exactly what he was talking about. In 1794 Congress has appropriated $15,000 for French refugees. Today, it is assumed that this falls under the “General Welfare” clause, which just shows us how socialist we have become in reading plain English phrases.
Well, I cannot undertake to lay any of my fingers on articles in the Constitution, especially given the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, that give the federal government authority to intercede in a private matter that does not cross any state line, nor touch on any power that we the people delegated to that government.
The only reason that the federal government has that power today, is that the Supreme Court has found a wordy way to allow it to be seized, and we have not complained loud enough to impeach those justices who support this reasoning.
People who insist that the power is there also support a welfare clause that is a blank check to create and sustain the Welfare State, upon which every one of the Democrat candidates for President expect to use to seize control of the entire medical industry and private health care.
see: How did we get here? By Dr. Walter Williams.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/fee/here.html
It took the U.S. Supreme Court 150 years to start that process under the guise of the 14th amendments's due process clause. Suprisingly, you'll find a whole bunch of supporters of incorporation right here on this forum -- some who support centralized federal government power even insist that the Bill of Rights always applied to the states!
"Incorporation" has done more to destroy federalism (and this country) than the Commerce Clause could ever hope to. At least we have some control over Congress.
"The Federal Supreme Court did not utter a peep when the Supreme Court of California declared there was no right to keep and bear arms in that State’s Constitution."
The California State Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms. At least, I couldn't find it. You're free to try.
Now, would you force the citizens of California to protect that right if they choose not to? Would you force them to protect the right to an abortion, also? The right to homosexual sodomy? The right to freedom from religion? The right to burn the American flag?
Or should these issues be decided by each state (as the Founding Fathers intended)?
Thanks. -- We've got a prime example of a non-conservative, non-libertarian posting such nonsense here on FR every day. -- Keep up the good fight.
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
Quote:
"--- the power of Congress to "well-regulate" commerce among the states does not include the power to forbid or prohibit commerce.
James Madison described a direct parallel between the regulation of the militia and the regulation of commerce when he asked:
How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other points? . . . How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided without a similar knowledge of some internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation --"
Yes. -- As per Article VI, our supreme law -- [the US Constitution as Amended by the BOR's], -- was intended to protect our individual rights, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
The U.S. Supreme Court [for 100 years] ignored those clear words under the guise that the 14th amendment only applied to ex-slaves.
And a whole bunch of supporters of statism here on this forum, -- still want to ignore our rights to due process under law, -- in favor of the theory that majority rule in State and local communities will somehow support our individual rights. -- California, Chicago and New York gun 'laws' show the stupidity of that position.
"Incorporation" is not needed. Restoration of our Constitutional principle that all officials, fed/state/local, MUST support and defend our individual rights/freedoms is what's needed.