Posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine
This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."
"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.
Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."
It is incredible, seeing the author completely ignores the supremacy clause in Art. VI.
He then goes on to bash our 2nd Amendment:
"Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.
Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.
This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill - this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation.
Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.
Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully.
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution.
After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."
Know you enemy.. This man Steve Mount is NOT a friend of our Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...
Maybe you can point out where the 14th a·mend·ment (&-m&nt-m&nt) changes "Congress" to "Congress and the States" in the 1st a·mend·ment (&-m&nt-m&nt).
Saying that a Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed sounds an aweful lot like an "immunity". Despite your idiot rantings about your liberal judicial heros.
The drafter of the amendment answered that question for you. You didn't like the answer. Too bad.
"18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional because it allows a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights."
The dicta in Emerson is outstanding. It led, however, to the gazillion page dicta in Silveira v. Lockyer by 9th Circuit Judge Reinhardt in his direct attempt to discredit the 5th Circuit.
Steve, -- Over two years ago on a thread called "The Incorporation Debate", I wrote to roscoe:
--- read the ratification debates themselves.
[to clarify that the 14ths intent was to protect our BOR's]
______________________________________
No support there. Cheap bluff.
11 posted on 05/22/2002 8:07:57 PM PDT by Roscoe
_____________________________________
To: Roscoe
Sorry, but the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment is clearly that of incorporation:
Debate over the anti-KKK bill naturally required exposition of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and none was better qualified to explain that section than its draftsman, Rep. John A. Bingham (R., Ohio):
Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.... These eight articles... never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union .... Id. at pt. 2, Appendix 84 (Mar. 31, 1871).
This is a most explicit statement of the incorporation thesis by the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment.
63 steve_b
______________________________________
Steve, --- it is clear to me, that our privileges and immunities of as citizens of a State are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Binghams opinion that " -- These eight articles... never were limitations upon the power of the States, -- " was just a popular misconception of his day, brought upon by Marshalls erroneous Barron 'decision' of 1833.
-- Nevertheless, the 14th was necessary in order to stop the many violations of individuals rights in southern States. -- But I fail to see why 'incorporation' of out BOR's is needed.
The 14th clearly says that States cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.
Why does the USSC need to 'incorporate' specific rights from our BOR's?
Someone needs to explain to Mr. Bingham that the second, third, seventh, and part of the fifth amendment still don't limit the states, 140 years after the 14th was ratified.
What a doofus you are paulsen. ALL of those rights are covered in our self evident rights to "life, liberty, or property", just as the 14th specified.
And he needs a reading lesson -- I thought the first amendment CLEARLY said, "Congress shall make no law ..."
And, that line CLEARLY applies only to the establishment clause. What a nonthinking doofus.
"Immune" from what, disarmament? That's a stretch.
Here's another take on the definition of privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" referred to in the 14th amendment:
"Although the Court has expressed a reluctance to attempt a definitive enumeration of those privileges and immunities of United States citizens which are protected against state encroachment, it nevertheless felt obliged in the Slaughter-House Cases ''to suggest some which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.''
Among those which it then identified were the right of access to the seat of Government and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land officers, and courts of justice in the several States, the right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas or abroad, the right of assembly, the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and rights secured by treaty.
In Twining v. New Jersey, the Court recognized ''among the rights and privileges'' of national citizenship the right to pass freely from State to State, the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, the right to vote for national officers, the right to enter public lands, the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal, and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws.
Earlier, in a decision not mentioned in Twining, the Court had also acknowledged that the carrying on of interstate commerce is ''a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise.''
-- caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/02.html#1
Nope, no right to keep and bear arms as a citizen of the United states.
On the off chance that you're not just trolling and this is really all new to you, here, 3rd column (remarks of Senator Howard, from the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction, upon introducing the proposed amendment to the Senate).
Pulling a Commerce Clause decision out of your ass does nothing to bolster your gun hating drivel, nor does it negate the fact that RKBA is a Right of every US Citizen as Stated. Even the Founders decried those who would attempt to subvert one part of the Constitution by misconstruing some power from another part of the Constitution.
Of course, liberal hoplophobes like your self would rather blather on and on about what some power hungry judge spewed than what those who actually wrote the Constitution said it meant.
Why do you hate our Constitution so much? Are you that scared or us having full use of our Rights?
Nope, no right to keep and bear arms as a citizen of the United states.
167 robertpaulsen
_____________________________________
FR's resident doofus strikes again.
LOL!
No he didn't and neither did you.
He said, "... permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the constitution of the United States."
I asked you what were the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States contained in the language of the 14th amendment.
Also, how can he say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the constitution of the United States, when he himself admits that "These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment."?
Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (written way before the 14th amendment) says: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Well, if "privileges and immunities" are the first eight amendments, then that means that the first eight amendments applied to all the states from the very beginning -- which he denies.
Tailsnipe Joe disagrees with:
ALL of our Constitutions Amendments apply to ALL levels of Government & to ALL levels of Officials in the USA, unless otherwise specified.
tpaine: "The BOR applies to the states,except when it doesn't."
GeronL wrote:
Who are these leftists?
______________________________________
Good question.
Ask steve 802, or better yet post to his forum at:
The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Address:http://www.usconstitution.net/index.html Changed:9:05 PM on Monday, July 12, 2004
Whatever joe.
-- But if you just dropped by to troll, please gab with your gungrabbing buddie paulsen. He needs company, poor little feller.
I'm just glad to see you've retreated somewhat from your extremely nationalist interpretation of the supremacy clause.
That pretty much settles the question of original intent -- the incorporation doctrine is precisely what the language was intended to establish. The courts have bastardized the doctrine by inventing the notion of "selective" incorporation, but judicial shenanigans of this sort are old news to FReepers.
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
That means precisely what the writer said it meant: a citizen is entitled to the same protections against each individual state government corresponding to the protection he is entitled to against the federal government of the several states.
"How will it be done under the present amendment? As I have remarked, they are not powers granted to Congress, and therefore it is necessary, if they are to be effectuated and enforced, as they assuredly ought to be, that additional power should be given to Congress to that end. This is done by the fifth section of this amendment, which declares that 'the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article'."
Where does it say the the USSC shall "incorporate" some or all of the Bill of Rights under the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment?
According to Senator "Moe" Howard, it was to be up to Congress. Congress has yet to do this after 140 years. None of the BOR should be applicable to the states since Congress has not written legislation to apply them.
I know Steve Mount, I used to go to the same church, and he was then and apparently continues to be a moron.
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.