Posted on 07/10/2006 8:41:07 AM PDT by Cato Uticensis
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.
You are ignorng the fact that Article VI itself says that "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding", the US Constitution is our supreme Law of the Land. And our supreme laws can be enforced against any infringements, fed/state/local. -- No one is above the law. ---
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.
And as long as States do not attempt to use powers prohibited to them, they remain constitutional. ---
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I've showed you this...repeatedly.
You showed me ~what~ repeatedly?
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:
Weird hype. the "first part" is not "breezed by".
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.
Exactly my point as to the States. -- They cannot infringe on prohibited powers.
-----
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.
Not true.. I've asserted that California has no power to write 'laws' that infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.
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?
It's keeping thousands of us from buying semi-auto weapons that are perfectly legal in the rest of the USA. -- Why are you defending this type of CA gun grab?
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?
They are, - but the majority rules in the democratic State of CA; -- and you defend their 'gun rules'. -----
Get real, -- the feds want to outlaw guns just as bad as CA does.
Sorry, not a power possessed by government at any level.
-----
Yet CA is 'outlawing' as above, and you defend them.
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.
Sigh, there you go again, imagining you've made a point that proves I "don't even know what" a republican form of government "is". --- All you're really proving is that you can't make that point logically, -- so you make a lame inference.
If you want to find out what the Founders meant you have to read what they read and then what they wrote.
Inferring of course, that you are the expert and have read everything .. -- As I said, dream on. -----
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.
Whatever
"In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws."
This then makes the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment --- religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition --- apply in the states."
As I point out in the post, the Establishment Clause CANNOT be regulated by the Federal Government, as the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from doing so. If you apply the XIV Amendment to the I Amendment, then the I Amendment is overturned. If the I Amendment is overturned, then what law is there to impose on the states? It's a paradox. Remember "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING..." that means the Federal Courts can take no case respecting an establishment of religion, unless it's Congress making a law.
The XIV Amendment on the Establishment Clause has been used by Secularists to tyrannize people into removing Ten Commandments monuments ad school prayer. It has been used to tyrannize, not liberate.
<<--- 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.
Article VI clearly says that: "-- This Constitution, ---- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ---- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion". ----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.>>
And each state has a state Supreme Court to determine whether a violation has been committed. The law of this land, as you put it, forbids the Federal Government from iterfering in these matters, so if you have respect for the laws of this land, you will oppose said interferrence.
By the way Mr Paine, if any mention of God by a state is UnConstitutional, as the ACLU would have us believe, then about half the states'Constitutions are Unconstitutional
Florida Constitution PREAMBLE-
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
The Alabama State Constitution Preamble runs:
We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
And so on for 20+ other states. Does this mean we are not a part of the United States? Is the bond between our states and the US dissolved? Do we need to form a Confederacy? Or is the ACLU just full of knockwurst? Which is it?
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion". ----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.
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.
"-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; --" is exactly what the clause says, no more.
-- States also 'shall make no laws' that violate the clauses in the 1st, -- as they apply to the State legislatures via the Supremacy clause and 10th Amendment.
And each state has a state Supreme Court to determine whether a violation has been committed.
State Supreme Courts have no jurisdiction to decide whether the US Constitution has been violated. The USSC makes such decisions as per Article III.
The law of this land, as you put it, forbids the Federal Government from iterfering in these matters, so if you have respect for the laws of this land, you will oppose said interferrence.
I do respect our Constitution. -- Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion, -- and neither should States.
I've never contended that, anywhere or anytime. -- God bless America & In God We Trust are just fine with me.
-- Does this mean we are not a part of the United States? Is the bond between our states and the US dissolved? Do we need to form a Confederacy? Or is the ACLU just full of knockwurst?
Which is it?
Which? -- 'It' [the 'war' for & against religion] is a bunch of political hype from all factions, the way I see it.
"Article VI clearly says that: "-- This Constitution, ---- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ---- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Thus, if a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the constitution, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI."
and the law of land says the Federals cannot dictate to us, the law makes no mention of the states, and thus all the stuff about "Separation of church and state" are invalid.
and the law of land says the Federals cannot dictate to us,
Of course they can't, - nevertheless, - the Constitution remains our supreme Law of the Land.
and thus all the stuff about "Separation of church and state" are invalid.
Not true.. If a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the Law of the Land, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI.
"Not true.. If a States law "respects an establishment of religion", -- or contradicts any other provision of the Law of the Land, -- it can be found unconstitutional under Article VI."
No, the Federal government is forbidden to get involved. THAT is the law of the land. You can't break a law to enforce it.
No, the Federal government is forbidden to get involved. THAT is the law of the land.
"Congress shall make no law" does not mean the "-- Federal government is forbidden to get involved. --" THAT is ~not~ the law of the land, it's what you imagine it to be.
You can't break a law to enforce it.
Obviously not. No one here is saying you can.
Round you go in circular reasoning. Fed courts have no real power to "impose" their opinions. State officials are free to fight & appeal such impositions, and ignore them while doing so.
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.