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

To: AwesomePossum
Yup. And this case is nothing new in jurisprudence. The USSC said the same thing in Downes V Bidwell, 182 US 244, and Hooven, Evatt. 324 US 652.
"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority."
42 posted on 01/15/2004 6:09:51 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: djf
"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority."

Those actions which the Constitution reserved to the states and forbade to Congress are given to Congress when Congress exercises their control over lands, enclaves, territories and possessions under their exclusive legislative authority since there is no state entity to legislate, but those powers that the Constitution forbids to Congress or to the states (such as the power to limit speech, religion, or to trial by jury) are still forbidden to Congress even in those areas of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority. The Second Amendment in particular not only limits the power of Congress to act to restrict the bearing or possession of arms, it seemingly puts those powers off limits to all levels of government -- "... shall not be infringed."

53 posted on 01/15/2004 7:28:14 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: djf
"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority."

All that means is that the Constitution gives Congress general powers over such areas. It does not mean they can violate the rest of the Constitution in those areas. They can't restrict free speach, habeus corpus cannot be denied, except as provided in the Constitution, and so forth.

65 posted on 01/15/2004 11:07:30 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | 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