Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NutCrackerBoy
NO - if it meant to limit the federal govt's powers, they would have used wording along the lines of "Congress shall make no law" rather than "the right of the individual". If you look at the DOI, individual rights are derived from God and are "inalienable". By recognizing the RKBA as and individual right, the USC prohibits states from passing laws that would infringe on those rights.
35 posted on 01/01/2004 9:24:47 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Nanodik
"if it meant to limit the federal govt's powers, they would have used wording "
Even a seemingly reasonable interpretation of the words of the Constitution, like yours or that of those who wish to expand the general welfare clause, run counter to the intent and understanding of it's authors and ratifiers at the time of it's adoption.

The Bill of Rights was demanded only as a limit on the Federal government:
"If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control.
And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government!
You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power!
You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?
What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. " Patrick Henry 1788

And that is what it was, a limit only on the federal government:

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them. " Supreme Court 1833 Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
(there is a link to a Libertarian 'Living Constitution' commentary at the bottom of the page which you might enjoy).

40 posted on 01/01/2004 11:36:54 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson