To: LexBaird; mrsmith
mrsmith:
Well, if we both agree that the federal government had no power to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the states then we certainly agree!
______________________________________
Actually, the Feds are not given explicitly the power to enforce anything.
There are certain things that imply such power, such as Article 1:8:18, but what they could legally do if a State started issuing money, for example, is left undefined.
I suppose the last recourse would be to call out the Natl. Guard.
452 -Lex-
____________________________________
The President is charged in Art. II with protecting & defending the Constitution, and seeing that its Laws are faithfully executed.
If his administration were to establish that officials of the State of Ca are violating our 2nd Amendment, certainly he could charge those State officials with that infringement in Federal court, -- and, -- if they refused to obey a USSC order to cease, enforce an order to jail them for contempt, at the least.
Not so?
456 posted on
06/21/2004 4:33:19 PM PDT by
tpaine
(The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn)
To: tpaine; mrsmith
The President is charged in Art. II with protecting & defending the Constitution, and seeing that its Laws are faithfully executed. If his administration were to establish that officials of the State of Ca are violating our 2nd Amendment, certainly he could charge those State officials with that infringement in Federal court, -- and, -- if they refused to obey a USSC order to cease, enforce an order to jail them for contempt, at the least.
Not so?
Yes, but this is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution as the method to be used for enforcement. The President is charged to "take care" that the laws are executed. By what means he achieves this is not specified.
This all comes back to mrsmith's contention that lack of explicit powers granted to the Feds to enforce the BoR somehow means that they don't apply to the States. There are other things in the Constitution that the States are held to which are not explicitly spelled out as to who should enforce them. Thus, we get into the whole sticky mess of implied powers, which is where governments always seem to pound the boundaries.
465 posted on
06/22/2004 7:17:49 AM PDT by
LexBaird
(Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson