Replies

Of course a state was always free to apply the federal Bill of Rights to itself if it wished to. Whether a state would allow one of it's judges to do so was solely up to the state.

"...But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them as beacon-lights to guide and control the action of their own legislatures, as well as that of Congress. "
"Virtually adopted": if it is less hurtful to their feelings I'm perfectly willing to call those who reject the Founders' Constitution "virtual constitutionalist" instead of "living constitutionalists". Apparently people just run away if their belief in a living constitution is pointed out to them, perhaps it would hurt their feelings less to call their rejection of the Founders' Constitution "virtual constitutionalism"- of a virtual constitution written by virtual Founders, virtually ratified by virtual Americans?

This poor judge offers nothing but his desires to support his rejection of Marshall's ruling and dicta- and our history. It's a perfect example of living constitution construction.

In fact it's amazingly perfect.

First you say that "the 14th Amendment was expressly written to extend the Second to the states", then you claim "the 14th did not apply it to the states"...

Which way would you have it?

And frankly I do not understand why you say states have the power to control our RKBA's. Can you explain?
How can you justify CA's ability to prohibit 'assault weapons'?
-657-

______________________________________

mrsmith now writes:
Of course a state was always free to apply the federal Bill of Rights to itself if it wished to.
Whether a state would allow one of it's judges to do so was solely up to
the state.

Not so. State judges are bound to observe the BOR's as the supreme Law of the Land by Art. VI..

As you are well aware, and refuse to admit..

Why is it that you support a states 'right' to prohibit guns? -- Can you answer?

This poor judge offers nothing but his desires to support his rejection of Marshall's ruling and dicta- and our history. It's a perfect example of living constitution construction.

The Judge of the Georgia Supreme Court (not just some "poor judge") quoted a US Supreme Court decision applying the 5th amendment to the states. He was arguing that some of the others, including the second, were similarly applicable to the states through the Supremacy Clause of Article VI.