Posted on 06/16/2004 8:42:31 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
That the states collectively slapped their foreheads and said, "Oh.. So THAT'S what you meant!"
C'mon.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments dealt with the newly freed slaves. The slaves were not "Citizens of the State" in which they resided, nor did the state have the power to make them so (that was a function of the federal government).
The phrase "Citizen of the United States" was created by the 14th amendment.
Typical weird misinfo by the 'states rights' anti-constitutional crowd.
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 591 [1979].
"Blacks" is wrong. All Representatives, Senators, & the President must be a "Citizen of the United States", as is specified in Articles I & II.
No, it established a "Citizen of the United States" that was not already a "Citizen of the State".
How dense can you get paulsen? There have always been "Citizens of the United States' who are not 'Citizens of a State'. They live in the territories or possessions of the United States. -- They also possess full individual rights as guaranteed by our US Constitution. -- AND; they do not lose the RKBA's when they move to California, as you claim.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments dealt with the newly freed slaves. The slaves were not "Citizens of the State" in which they resided, nor did the state have the power to make them so (that was a function of the federal government).
Good grief. -- Where do you come up with these bizarre 'citizenship' theories, paulsen? Is there some specific site that posts this weird BS?
Who's saying it seems obsolete?
Article V: ... [amendments] shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution...
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, ..., shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
396 LexBaird
______________________________________
So you're saying that the states were violating the BOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution for over 125 years, but the passage of yet another amendment, similar to the ones the states were ignoring, brought the states in line? That the states collectively slapped their foreheads and said, "Oh.. So THAT'S what you meant!" C'mon.
401 paulsen
______________________________________
No, Lex showed you what you asked for paulsen, -- specifically.
-- And now your best comeback is feeble sarcasm.
- You are truly pitiful at debate.
If it's clear that that prohibition on power didn't apply to the states, then it's equally clear that your claim that "Neither the Feds nor the States were to have powers prohibited by the Constitution" is dead wrong. Thanks.
Incrementalism worked for the gun-grabbers; it can work for us as well. If we avoid just such a situation as you outline above.
I should point out further that privileges and immunities are not the same as rights.
Oops. I meant to say, "It established a "citizen of the United States" that was not already a "Citizen of the State".
You've gone along with the hypothetical without objecting and even used it yourself in post 382. When your argument gets shot down by mrsmith in post #385 and my post #384, all of a sudden you've had problems with it from the beginning.
I'd be interested in the details of the hypothetical case that the USSC heard to come to this conclusion. The reason being that I believe it would be the landmark case that individual gun grabbers would use at the state level to fight against their own state laws and the interpretation of their own state constitution, especially if their own state constitution contains language similar to the second amendment.
That has nothing to do with incorporation. Give it up paulsen.
It's your hypothetical -- make something up. I don't mean to waste your time, but these landmark cases are important when it comes to subsequent legislation.
I gave you the most unfavorable set of circumstances of a USSC ruling on the Second Amendment. You've had ample opportunity to come up with a scenario where incorporation would be detrimental to the RKBA. You couldn't.
I tried to provide you with analogies where the USSC interpreted an incorporated BOR amendment and that interpretation then applied to the states. Obviously, I wasn't successful, but that's my argument.
Nice spin. Your use of the flag burning analogy to argue against incorporation of the Second was refuted.
How about this? How about federal first amendment restrictions on pornography? Doesn't the USSC interpretation of free speech apply to the states? Can a state allow, for example, child pornography as protected free speech if it wishes? Do you understand my point?
Give it up. We've already been through this with flag burning. If USSC says flag burning/porn etc. is not protected speech, then the State is free to either outlaw or allow flag burning/porn etc.
If USSC says flag burning etc. is protected speech, then a State cannot outlaw it. What is so hard to understand?
If USSC says Second Amendment does not protect individual RKBA, it simply is left to the States to decide. There is nothing that prevents a State from protecting it in their State Constitution.
Time to admit you've lost the argument against incorporation.
Since you posted it, you must agree with it. So, our RKBA is delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II?
Specificly because of people like you...
Certainly not me. I was referring to the so-called moderates on the issue who say there is no more need for a citizen's militia since it could not possibly do battle with our present day armed forces if the government ever became so oppressive it provoked another revolution. They ignore the fact that the best defense against armed gangs and common criminals is armed citzens. The amendment will never be obsolete as long as human nature remains the same
I was simply saying that whether or not those people are right about the necessity of a citizen's militia in this modern era of nukes and ultra hi-tech weapons, and personally I don't think they are, the amendment is still part of the Constitution and as such it should be obeyed by our lawmakers and judges. Forcing them to do that is another proposition altogether, but one which should be undertaken before it's too late.
It doesn't matter if We the People could ever defeat our own Federal Army. It is better to be armed and have illusions of grandure, than to be disarmed and completely helpless to even try.
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.