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 ?
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.
tpaine, if I may ask for a clarification? Are you saying there are no "states rights" and that there never were?
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Kind of hard to defend "life and liberty" and posses property without having a firearm. The State cannot acknowledge an inalienable right and then put a proviso on it. The State didn't GIVE you the right, you were born with it, so the State cannot alter it, either.
The right to keep and bear arms exists whether the political subdivision known as the State of California acknowledges it or not.
-----
do you agree that the 2nd should apply as our supreme law in CA ?
No.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
They say it doesn't, and I can't see why it would. The US Constitution is for areas under the jurisdiction of the federal government ONLY. It has no authority within the jurisdiction of the State.
Government (at any level) can only legitimately exercise whatever authority has been given to it by the People.
Nowhere can I find the government's authority to tell us what we may or may not possess.
Can you show me of any instance where a homeowner in California shot a burgler and was prosecuted for it?
-----
Because State constitutions must be approved by Congress before they are admitted to the union.
Thanks, I know the procedure, but it didn't answer the question.
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?
And if a State makes changes after admission, changes that violate the US Constitution
Why do States have the ability to 'change' anything if they can be overridden by the federal Constitution?
-------
The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 16, 1788
[James Madison]
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
The Federalist No. 45
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
Independent Journal
Saturday, January 26, 1788
[James Madison]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
_________
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?
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.