Posted on 07/10/2006 8:41:07 AM PDT by Cato Uticensis
Separation of Church and State? Multiple Choice question for all you out there-
"Separation of Church and State" does NOT appear in which of the following Constitutions?
A. Pol Pot's Cambodia B. Nazi Germany C. USSR D. United States
If you answered "D" you got the only correct answer.
In "B", Nazi Germany, Hitler, a New Age Neo-Pagan, did his best to de-Christianize his Third Reich. Hitler hated Jews, you see, and Jesus, being a Jew, was hated by the Nazi Party. The SS, who were the political troops of the regime, used pagan symbology and desecrated Christian wayside shrines on their axis of advance much the way ACLU tyrants do in America today.
Joseph Stalin and his Communist Party wrote a Constitution for the new USSR in 1936. It included Separation of Church and State. In the implementation of this countless numbers were murdered or sent to forced labor camps.
And who can forget the crown jewel of Secular Humanism, Khmer Rouge Kampuchea? The Separation of Church and State was very well enforced, enough to make the ACLU proud. Any display of religious belief earned the believer a one-way trip to a killing field.
With such a marvelous track record, it's a wonder that any of us here in America would not want this law in full force here!
The troublesome little fact is "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Look hard and long, read it backwards and forwards, read every word twice, you'll never find the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. This is a might strange to me, as Left Wing revisionist historians argue that this mythical separation was so critically important to our Founding Fathers. So why didn't they write it out plainly if they were so unanimous and unwavering in this belief? Most perplexing.
The revisionists argue that the Establishment Clause in the I Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." But there are several problems with this. First being, if it was so important to keep government and religion apart, how did civilization as we know it survive between the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791? Something as important as the wall of separation supposedly was, why wasn't it put in one of the Articles of the Constitution? Why put off putting in the Constitution UNTIL AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED? Here are the facts- The majority of Americans in 1787 and 1788 were Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for America. They did not want to trade a tyrant in London for a tyrant in Philadelphia and they knew any national government would have the potential to be exactly that. However, most people that the new thirteen independent countries needed to keep some semblance of unity, because it was a dangerous world filled with aggressive empires. They liked many of the ideas of the Constitution. So many of the Anti-Federalists agreed to support the new Constitution in return for the promise of a Bill of Rights to curtail Federal power. Let me reiterate this- the Bill of Rights- Amendments I-X- were written expressly to limit Federal authority. The "Establishment Clause" of the I Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no LAW RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." (emphasis mine) The argument can really end here as school prayer or local Ten Commandments monuments are not laws made by Congress. However, when trying to properly interpret a law, it is important to understand its origin and purpose. And in the Estbalishment Clause we have the glossed over word "respecting." If Congress can make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion, that means, in plain English, that Congress cannot make a law for, against or indifferent to Establishment of Religion. It cannot touch the question. It necessarily follows that Federal Courts cannot touch the question either. Unless, of course it involves Congress making a law to Establish a Religion. What does this mean? It means that the biggest violator of the Establishment Clause in America today are the thug lawyers of the ACLU and the corrupt, protituted judges who seem bent on giving them their every whim, no matter how tyrannical. The Establishment Clause was written to protect people like the citizens of San Diego who are being tyrannized by the ACLU over a cross in their city's war memorial. Or the young girl who was denied both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in her valedictorian speech in Nevada while the ACLU applauded.
So where does Separation of Church and State REALLY come from? I mean, something supposedly so important was not recognized by any court in the land from 1789 to 1947. Strange that something so vital to a Republic as silencing religion supposedly is had to be "discovered" by a New Deal judge over 170 years after the founding of our nation. The separation crowd bays that Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his Danbury Baptist Church letter in 1801. However, suppose for a moment that the ACLU was trying to put a child rapist back on the street, as they often do. And suppose the prosecution based its case on a document written by someone who did not witness the crime and wrote it 14 years later. The ACLU would, no doubt, argue (rightly) that this evidence should be inadmissable. But these same people argue that Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter, written 14 years after the Constitutional Convention at which he was not even present, is ironclad proof that "Separation of Church and State" is in our Constitution. What's more Jefferson was reassuring the good people of Danbury, Connecticut that the Federal Government would be staying out of their religious affairs in that letter. What comfort would the Danbury Baptists have taken from Jefferson promising to force them not to pray in their schools or break the crosses off their war memorials? Jefferson had won the presidency in 1800 on a platform of limited Federal interferrence. The notion of some New York shyster being able to tell people in towns that he didn't live in in Alabama or Georgia that they couldn't have a Ten Commandments monument in their public square would have been alien to him. It was the exact opposite of what he stood for. Thus, his letter to the Danbury Baptists is really inadmissable.
The first time "Separation of Chruch and State" appears in our Judicial opinions is written by the Supreme Court tyrant Hugo Black. It was in the 1947 Eversman v Board of Education case. Black actually ruled in favor of the Christians, saying that they "weren't violating the Separation of Chruch and State." So much for the stare decises of the 1892 Holy Trinity case, which acknowledged the obvious truth that America is a Christian nation. In any event, the Black stuck that little phrase into his ruling and the Left has been tyrannizing us ever since. The Eversman case was the latest in a string of cases in which the Courts applied the Bill of Rights at the state level, supposedly, via the XIV Amendment (which says that no state may deny immunities and priviledges of the Constitution).
Hugo Black and the Left argue that the XIV Amendment can transfer the establishment Clause down to the states, counties and municipalities. There are many problems with this, most glaring of which is the complete legal paradox which it creates. As has already been shown, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause? Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.
To wit- the Court can force New York State to honor Free Speech in the Gitlow case without violating New York's free speech. But they cannot force the Establishment Clause on the states without itself violating the Establishment Clause. The Left, as usual, is trying to have it both ways.
Truth of the matter is, Liberals in the 1920s, 30s and 40s believed that Stalin's Russia was the most advanced and enlightened nation on the earth. New Deal Liberals dreamed of a socialist world. In Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution said "there shall be a separation of church and state." It worked so well for Stalin, they wanted to try it here. You see, our Liberal judges seeking to impose the laws of Global Socialism on us is not a new phenomenon. It didn't begin with Breyer and Ginsberg imposing French and UN law on us a couple years back. Hugo Black and his fellow eight FDR appointees began this Leftist Judicial tradition by imposing Stalin's laws on us. And THAT is the true origin of Separation of Church and State in Modern America.
LOL! Heaven's no!
The States have the right to bear arms provisions too.
California does not, and thus contends that it can prohibit arms; -- do you agree that the 2nd should apply as our supreme law in CA ?
No.
Just above you agreed that states should not infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. -- Which is it, yes or no?
The US Constitution is for areas under the jurisdiction of the federal government ONLY. It has no authority within the jurisdiction of the State.
Article VI directly contradicts your comment.
If the federal Constitution was meant to cover the entire country, why are the Bill of Rights duplicated almost word for word in every State Constitution? Why do the State Constitutions even exist?
Because State constitutions must be approved by Congress before they are admitted to the union. --- And if a State makes changes after admission, changes that violate the US Constitution, such infringements can be struck down as unconstitutional.
Why does a State even have to have a Constitution? Why can't they just agree to abide by the federal Constitution and be done with it?
Because States write laws that the feds can't, and their constitutions apply to those laws.
Why do States have the ability to 'change' anything if they can be overridden by the federal Constitution?
Because State constitutions apply to laws written under State powers, unless those laws violate our Law of the Land.
The contention in the article that the federal Constitution is for the federal government, so the establishment clause does not affect the States.
I agree, and have submitted evidence to support that claim. - Do you have any historical or legal proof to the contrary?
In my first post here I quoted the Constitutional proof [Article VI] that our Law of the Land is supreme over "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Learn to live with that proof -- as it cannot be logically denied.
This provision was added in the federal Constitution to serve much the same purpose as the 'military subordinate to the civil authority' was placed in the State Constitutions.
It kept the States from encroaching on the federal authority by passing laws that said the State could coin money, make foreign treaties, etc.
-----
Many people don't appreciate what a brilliant document the US Constitution is. Madison what considered a Federalist in his time, but using today's standards he would be a hard-line right-winger... simply because he insisted government operate solely for the purpose for which it was intended:
The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 16, 1788
[James Madison]
If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by States, not by citizens, it departs from the national and advances towards the federal character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the federal and partakes of the national character.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
I'm still waiting for an amendment for the separation of SCHOOL AND STATE!
As long as nobody expects me to become a Christian, I don't care how many times they mention God in government. Let's just let people have the freedom to practice their religion and those of us who are non believers be left alone as well.
LOL!
Do you know the different venues of law?
Do you know the difference between an inalienable right to defend yourself and the right to keep and bear arms?
Self defense is a natural, inalienable right. No government, or political subdivision, can deny your exercising that right, and it doesn't matter whether you use a Glock or a glockenspiel to do it.
It is outside the reach of their authority, PERIOD. Just because government doesn't acknowledge that right doesn't mean that right doesn't exist.
The right to keep and bear arms is a positive law, or man made right, and reinforces our natural right of self defense by specifying an object which we can do it with. It doesn't ban or prohibit anything, it just says "Yep, there it is!"
Do you know the difference between a declaratory and a restrictive clause?
-----
Learn to live with that proof -- as it cannot be logically denied.
And I showed you where the States retain supremacy in their jurisdictional areas....so your 'proof' went *POOF*!
Learn to live with that proof -- as it cannot be logically denied.
Article 6, Clause 2
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 provision was added in the federal Constitution to serve much the same purpose as the 'military subordinate to the civil authority' was placed in the State Constitutions.
It's intent is self evident from its 'bold' wording.
It kept the States from encroaching on the federal authority by passing laws that said the State could coin money, make foreign treaties, etc.
It was intended to keep any level of gov't from encroaching on our rights to life liberty and property.
-- When States insisted that it did not, civil war settled the issue militarily, and then the 14th was enacted to settle the issue constitutionally.
Obviously, some here think it is still not settled.
LOL! Do you know the different venues of law?
I now know you won't answer the question. -- Sad that you laugh it off.
Do you know the difference between an inalienable right to defend yourself and the right to keep and bear arms?
There is none, as most any type of property I own can be used as an arm or weapon.
ROFLMAO! Logic? You insist on such an asinine premise that the proof that the federal Constitution is not paramount can be found ONLY in that Constitution itself... and then accuse me of denying logic?
By your line of reasoning, people in California must stand by and be passively murdered even if their is a firearm within reach because government didn't give them 'permission' to defend themselves with it.
BTW - repeating a previous post and changing the text doesn't legitimatize an already disproved assertion..
-----
It was intended to keep any level of gov't from encroaching on our rights to life liberty and property.
Within federal jurisdiction, yes. Not the entire country. That's what the State Constitutions are for.
In January 1800, the entire House went to the state legislature of Virginia. Both Virginia and Kentucky had petitioned the new federal government that the recent Alien and Sedition Act was unconstitutional.
Madison wrote the report: James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
The resolution declares, first, that "it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties;" in other words, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution; and that the Constitution is a compact to which the states are parties. Clear as the position must seem, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution, and from that alone, the committee are not unapprised of a late doctrine which opens another source of federal powers, not less extensive and important than it is new and unexpected. The examination of this doctrine will be most conveniently connected with a review of a succeeding resolution. The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking that, in all the contemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
If the federal government acts outside it's jurisdiction, those acts are nullified by the Constitution itself.
Its the way it was designed.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
-----
When States insisted that it did not, civil war settled the issue militarily, and then the 14th was enacted to settle the issue constitutionally.
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
LOL! So much for force being 'Constitutional'.
-----
Obviously, some here think it is still not settled.
And you've bounced from the original separation of church and State' subject of the thread to a right to keep and bear arms to a civil war thread, yet you cannot show me ONE thing outside the US Constitution ITSELF that proves it's supremacy (outside its Constitutionally enumerated boundaries) over the States that created it .
Not a Federalist or Anti-Federalist paper, court opinion...NOTHING!
And I'm STILL waiting on you showing me one instance of a California homeowner being prosecuted for defending his home with a firearm.
So either contribute something tangible to the discussion or be gone, junior.
The choice is yours.
Then your answer is no. Why are you so insistent that I answer your questions while you have yet to answer mine? You continually quote the same Constitutional article, but answer nothing.
----
Sad that you laugh it off.
Even sadder is someone who would champion an overreaching national government using the screen name tpaine.
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
Introduction to Common Sense
by Thomas Paine
-----
There is none, as most any type of property I own can be used as an arm or weapon.
While true, it's beside the point. I was talking of a legal difference, not a physical one.
They are both 'rights', but they come from different sources of law. Not having the latter, (like in California) DOESN'T negate either right..
:-)
ROFLMAO! Logic? You insist on such an asinine premise that the proof that the federal Constitution is not paramount can be found ONLY in that Constitution itself...
The words of our constitution are not proof to you? That's illogical; -- sorry bout that.
Article 6, Clause 2
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.
The Articles intent is self evident from its 'bold' wording.
It was intended to keep any level of gov't from encroaching on our rights to life liberty and property.
Within federal jurisdiction, yes. Not the entire country.
The wording of Article VI proves you wrong. 'State laws & constitutions notwithstanding', -- the US Constitution is our supreme law.
That's what the State Constitutions are for. If the federal government acts outside it's jurisdiction, those acts are nullified by the Constitution itself. Its the way it was designed.
If State laws act to infringe on our liberties, those acts are nullified by the Constitution itself. Its the way it was designed.
-- When States insisted that it did not, civil war settled the issue militarily, and then the 14th was enacted to settle the issue constitutionally.
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
Your cited opinion obviously never took into account the clear words of Article VI.
Obviously, some here think it is still not settled.
And you've bounced from the original separation of church and State' subject of the thread to a right to keep and bear arms to a civil war thread,
Not at all, as they all concern what you claim is a power of the State; -- to ignore our rights in the writing of State or local laws. --- That power is prohibited by Article VI, the 10th, and the 14th amendments.
yet you cannot show me ONE thing outside the US Constitution ITSELF that proves it's supremacy (outside its Constitutionally enumerated boundaries) over the States that created it .
The US Constitution ITSELF proves it's supremacy. What more need be said?
Not a Federalist or Anti-Federalist paper, court opinion...NOTHING!
Everybody has opinions. But we the people have a Constitution worth defending against infringements. You disagree? - So be it.
So either contribute something tangible to the discussion or be gone, junior.
The choice is yours.
I'm somehow 'junior' to you? Get a grip.
For 'Laws of any State to the Contrary', see post #11.
-----
See? You make the same assertion over and over with nothing BUT that assertion to back it up.
-----
Everybody has opinions. But we the people have a Constitution worth defending against infringements. You disagree? - So be it.
Ah, the old you-disagree-with-me-so-you-must-be-against-the Constitution argument.
Freepers USED to source the documents to support their assertions, now the intellectual argument consist of 'because I say so'.
How lame.
-----
You can jump up & down about the 'law of the land 'clause all you like. It won't change the meaning:
Our national constitution having committed to us the management of the national concerns with foreign States and powers, it is our duty to take care that all the rights which they ought to enjoy within our Jurisdiction by the laws of nations and the faith of treaties remain inviolate. And it is also our duty to provide that the essential interests and peace of the whole confederacy be not impaired or endangered by deviations from the line of public faith into which any of its members may from whatever cause be unadvisedly drawn. Let it be remembered that the thirteen Independent Sovereign States have by express delegation of power, formed and vested in us a general though limited Sovereignty for the general and national purposes specified in the Confederation. In this Sovereignty they cannot severally participate (except by their Delegates) nor with it have concurrent Jurisdiction, for the 9th Article of the confederation most expressly conveys to us the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on war and peace, and of entering into treaties and alliances .
When therefore a treaty is constitutionally made ratified and published by us, it immediately becomes binding on the whole nation and superadded to the laws of the land, without the intervention of State Legislatures. Treaties derive their obligation from being compacts between the Sovereign of this, and the Sovereign of another Nation, whereas laws or statutes derive their force from being the Acts of a Legislature competent to the passing of them. Hence it is clear that Treaties must be implicitly received and observed by every Member of the Nation; for as State Legislatures are not competent to the making of such compacts or treaties, so neither are they competent in that capacity, authoritatively to decide on, or ascertain the construction and sense of them.
Document 3
John Jay, Continental Congress
13 Apr. 1787Journals 32:177--84
(FYI- In 1789, Washington appointed John Jay Chief Justice of the new Supreme Court)
-----
The law of the land clause applies ONLY to those powers ALREADY enumerated by the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to impose the federal Bill of Rights on the States, nor does the 14th Amendment give it that power:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
The 'limits' of US jurisdiction can be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
You are not 'born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction' unless you're born in a port, fort, arsenal or the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.
-----
'Congress shall make no law' means Congress...NOT the legislatures of the States.
Don't believe me? Fine.
But do yourself and your country a favor, man...
educate yourself!
Please show me the words of the federal Constitution that acknowledges any unalienable right.
By your logic, the American People have no right to life, liberty, property, or any other unalienable rights constantly spoken of by the Founders.
These rights are only mentioned in the State Constitutions...does that mean the federal government is not legally obligated to acknowledge them?
You can't have it both ways.
The US Constitution ITSELF proves it's supremacy. What more need be said?
Not a Federalist or Anti-Federalist paper, court opinion...NOTHING!
Everybody has opinions. But we the people have a Constitution worth defending against infringements. You disagree? - So be it.
Ah, the old you-disagree-with-me-so-you-must-be-against-the Constitution argument.
You can't deny that you favor States having the power to infringe on some of our rights in the bill of rights; -- so there you go..
Freepers USED to source the documents to support their assertions, now the intellectual argument consist of 'because I say so'. How lame.
You have the opinion that states have the power to ignore the US Constitution, and you quote other opinions to back you up. How lame. --- Opinions are not facts.
The law of the land clause applies ONLY to those powers ALREADY enumerated by the Constitution.
Weird theory. -- The fact is that the clauses that follow, -- as well as the amendments that follow the supremacy clause, -- are all affected by that principle.
Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to impose the federal Bill of Rights on the States, nor does the 14th Amendment give it that power: --
You're simply in denial that the supremacy clause exists, as it is written; -- and that people have the rights [ rights not to be "infringed" "abridged" "deprived" or "denied"] described in the Amendments to the US Constitution. -- Incredible claim.
'Congress shall make no law' means Congress...NOT the legislatures of the States.
The fact that Congress is named in the 1st's establishment clause does not mean that other levels of federal, state or local governments can infringe upon the peoples rights enumerated [or unenumerated] in the rest of the amendments.
Don't believe me? Fine.
So either contribute something tangible to the discussion or be gone, junior.
The choice is yours.
I'm somehow 'junior' to you? Get a grip.
No. I said the State and federal government has their own spheres of operation
"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry
-----
Opinions are not facts.
Well, since the opinions are from the men WHO WROTE the Constitution, I'd think they would have a much better idea of its functions and purpose than you would.
The FACT is that, in your 'opinion' their words are meaningless...but your 'opinion' doesn't make it a 'fact'.
You deride the information given, yet still offer nothing of your own.
-----
You're simply in denial that the supremacy clause exists, as it is written;
LOL!
I've acknowledged the clause repeatedly and affirmed the federal government is 'supreme' ONLY when it operates within its enumerated duties.
Anytime it operates outside those SPECIFIC duties, it becomes an unconstitutional act.
-----
The fact that Congress is named in the 1st's establishment clause does not mean that other levels of federal, state or local governments can infringe upon the peoples rights enumerated [or unenumerated] in the rest of the amendments.
The fact that Congress is named in the First amendment means all the Amendments have to do with Congress and not the States.
The States operate within a CIVIL jurisdiction and the Constitution is a purely STATUTORY instrument.
That's WHY no 'right to life' appears in the federal Constitution, but that right DOES appear in the State Constitutions.
Do you know why the legislature is listed before the President or the judiciary?
Do you know why the federal government has 'powers', but the States have 'rights'?
-----
I'm somehow 'junior' to you? Get a grip.
No comment from you concerning the fact that the laws of the States do, indeed, 'withstand' the supremacy clause.
STILL no sources.
Still no instances of a homeowner in California prosecuted for shooting a burglar DESPITE no RKBA in that's State's Constitution.
You contention that the federal government can force California to acknowledge the RKBA is hollow simply because if it COULD, it would have done so by now.
On my question as to WHY the States must have their own Constitutions since you believe the federal Constitution is 'supreme' your reply because they 'have to'.
Still no evidence of any kind to support your assertions.
Just "Blah, blah, blah... because I say so."
The really ridiculous part is that you don't even know enough about Constitutional structure to tell a declaratory clause from a restrictive clause or realize the modern definition of a Republic is vastly different than the intention of the Founders.
Have you even read Montesquieu? He was the second-most quoted source of the Founders, you know-
Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.
THE SPIRIT OF LAWS Book VI By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu
-----
So... Sorry I referred to you as 'junior'.
Your lack of evidence and rational debate proves you're obviously undeserving of such a lofty position.
Good day.
You're simply in denial that the supremacy clause exists, as it is written;
LOL! I've acknowledged the clause repeatedly and affirmed the federal government is 'supreme' ONLY when it operates within its enumerated duties.
Yet you deny that State constitutions & laws must also operate under our Law of the Land.
The fact that Congress is named in the 1st's establishment clause does not mean that other levels of federal, state or local governments can infringe upon the peoples rights enumerated [or unenumerated] in the rest of the amendments.
The fact that Congress is named in the First amendment means all the Amendments have to do with Congress and not the States.
All of the Constitution, - [amendments are inseparable parts of the Constitution] -- as per Article VI, applies as our supreme "Law of the Land".
Your theory that the BOR's do not apply is also belied by the 10th, wherein powers are "prohibited by it [the US Constitution] to the states".
IE, in a free State, the rights of the people shall not be infringed.
The States operate within a CIVIL jurisdiction and the Constitution is a purely STATUTORY instrument. That's WHY no 'right to life' appears in the federal Constitution, but that right DOES appear in the State Constitutions.
Our right to life, liberty, or property is mention twice in the Constitution, in the 5th & 14th amendments. -- Yet another weird denial of fact.
Do you know why the legislature is listed before the President or the judiciary?
Doesn't one have to be 'listed' first? -- And one last?
Do you know why the federal government has 'powers', but the States have 'rights'?
You claim states have "rights"? -- The 10th makes it clear that States have powers, some of which the Constitution prohibits. --- Like the power to deprive us of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
No comment from you concerning the fact that the laws of the States do, indeed, 'withstand' the supremacy clause.
You're imagining you've established such a 'fact'.
STILL no sources. Still no instances of a homeowner in California prosecuted for shooting a burglar DESPITE no RKBA in that's State's Constitution.
Rant on that CA's gun prohibitions are constitutionally OK.
You contention that the federal government can force California to acknowledge the RKBA is hollow simply because if it COULD, it would have done so by now.
Get real, -- the feds want to outlaw guns just as bad as CA does. Are you blind to the ongoing national anti-gun movement?
On my question as to WHY the States must have their own Constitutions since you believe the federal Constitution is 'supreme' your reply because they 'have to'.
Hype. -- Our discussion is posted; -- anyone can read my more detailed answer.
Still no evidence of any kind to support your assertions. Just "Blah, blah, blah... because I say so." The really ridiculous part is that you don't even know enough about Constitutional structure to tell a declaratory clause from a restrictive clause or realize the modern definition of a Republic is vastly different than the intention of the Founders.
So you [blah blah] claim, without further specifying your points, if any..
Have you even read Montesquieu? He was the second-most quoted source of the Founders, you know-
Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.
THE SPIRIT OF LAWS Book VI By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu -----
You have this really bizarre habit of quoting rather esoteric passages, imagining that they buttress your poorly made observations. -- Dream on.
So... Sorry I referred to you as 'junior'. Your lack of evidence and rational debate proves you're obviously undeserving of such a lofty position. Good day.
Whatever.
Good grief. Read this:
Article 6, Clause 2 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.
Now... sentence by sentence.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof
The powers granted to Congress are listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Nowhere is the federal government given the power to supersede the inherent rights of the States in anything OTHER than those powers listed.
---
under the Authority of the United States
Again, this authority is laid out in the Constitution. As long as the federal government stays within the confines of its enumerated duties which are listed in Section 8, it remains Constitutional.
---
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I've showed you this...repeatedly.
Not my fault you choose not to use your capacity for reasoning.
I've also showed you George Tucker who, in 1803, wrote A View of the Constitution, a compendium for the new Constitution, explaining for the People how the newly crated Constitution operated in conjunction with the common law of the American colonists and explaining the Constitutional operation in more detail.
From post #11
That, as this control cannot possibly extend beyond those objects to which the federal government is competent, under the constitution, and under the declaration contained in the twelfth article, so neither ought the laws, or even the constitution of any state to impede the operation of the federal government in any case within the limits of it's constitutional powers. That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
-----
Your theory that the BOR's do not apply is also belied by the 10th, wherein powers are "prohibited by it [the US Constitution] to the states".
LOL! Nice of you to breeze by the first part:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The federal government must stay within its sphere of operation and the State governments must stay within theirs.
i.e. A power exercised that was never delegated is an Unconstitutional power.
-----
Rant on that CA's gun prohibitions are constitutionally OK.
I never said they were. You make the assertion that they California MUST have a RKBA amendment, but they do not. Nor does the federal government seem to be in any hurry to force one on them.
Yet this supposed lack isn't keeping anyone from defending themselves with one, is it?
So what would having it written down change...and why aren't the people of California standing on the doorstep of the legislature to change it?
-----
Get real, -- the feds want to outlaw guns just as bad as CA does.
Sorry, not a power possessed by government at any level.
-----
Hype. -- Our discussion is posted; -- anyone can read my more detailed answer.
Yep..as they say 'The Devil's in the details'
-----
You have this really bizarre habit of quoting rather esoteric passages, imagining that they buttress your poorly made observations. -- Dream on.
(sigh)
Article IV. - The States
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Hard to insist on a Republican form of government when when you don't even know what one is.
If you want to find out what the Founders meant you have to read what they read and then what they wrote.
-----
Believe what you like.
Until you actually understand what the words in the Constitution mean, and not just what you've been told they say, your rights will continue to slip away.
And you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
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.