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 The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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 ...
I will leave it as an exersize for the class to explain why it was impossible for the writer of Article IV, Section 2 to have expressed an intent that referred to the text of Amendments I-VIII, and yet perfectly possible for Bingham to have expressed that intent using the same phrase.
And how were they "made so" by the 14th amendment? Not by the USSC, that's for sure. See my post #179.
The courts weren't even allowed "selective incorporation". This was to be a function of Congress.
Privileges and immunities did not and do not refer to the Bill of Rights. I previously explained exactly what were the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the State" , and what were the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States".
Oh for pete's sake, are you really this dense? We're talking about the Privileges or Immunities clause, not the Due Process clause. FYI, the due process clause isn't even about citizens. You asked for the meaning of the phrase "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; I gave you an explanation direct from the source. A thank you will do.
Incorporation via the due process clause is what the Court pulled out of its ass instead of fixing its evisceration of the P or I clause in Slaughterhouse. Why on earth would Congress be talking about it during the ratification debates? Please, either follow the conversation or leave me alone.
That's my whole point. Obviously, the USSC, over the years, has read the 14th differently than what you're suggesting.
And let's not blame the USSC here. According to my post to you, Congress was to implement the 14th, not the courts. From 1868 to 1925 (when the USSC began its practice of selective incorporation), where was Congress?
Oh really? You think that Slaughterhouse is wrong? And you think that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states?
Anyway, I gotta go now.
Which is better than your record as you have been at this for years and are still failing to make any sense at all.
Possession is 9/10's of the law.
My family has possesed firearms at the ready loaded above the fireplace since 1620 (maternal side)and 1648 (paternal) for any emergency or call to arms, as they did in New England Indian Wars, Queen Ann's War, French & Indian War, Bunker Hill under Prescott's Company, Battle of Saratoga II, British Raid on Washington's ammo stores in Conn., et alii, and Battle of Plattsburg War of 1812, & Civil War under New York volunteers. My brothers and sisters are marksmen/women.
The U.S. Constitution rests upon the powder of the citizens' gunpowder.
Any Mayflower family knows this.
Keep your powder dry.
Badda bing, badda boom, law of the land.
They didn't. I'm questioning why not. I asking, where was Congress?
Since they didn't, I'm wondering just how correct the speaker was in your cite.
The more I read about 14th amendment the more I come to believe that the 14th wasn't to apply any amendment to the states.
As everyone on this board agrees, except tpaine, the BOR as written was only to apply to the federal government. I like it that way.
Liar, liar. Most Second Amendment proponents here on FR have already written anit-Second Amendment dimwits like you off as trolls.
Of course tinpot dictators like you like it that way. This means that those Rights have no weight and can be stripped by petty politicians and Judges at the State level. Clearly not the Founders intent on implementing the BoR to begin with.
Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
The more I read about 14th amendment the more I come to believe that the 14th wasn't to apply any amendment to the states.
That is exactly what everyone has been trying to tell you paulsen. ALL of our basic inalienable rights already applied to ALL levels of government. -- The 14th was needed to stop State infringements of our individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
As everyone on this board agrees, except tpaine, the BOR as written was only to apply to the federal government.
Nearly everyone on this board agrees that our RKBA's is inalienable, paulsen, You dont. You boast:
"I like it that way."
193 paulsen
Yep, paulsen you like the way our corrupted system works, no doubt because you make your living off some aspect of the corruption.
And everyone on this board can see that ~very~ clearly.
The 14th Amendment was intended to centralize our government, by giving the Federal courts too much power over the State legislatures. It is an illegitimate amendment, the font of do-good busybody, Harrison Bergeron liberalism (like busing), proposed and voted out by an unconstitutional Congress. Less than 3/4ths of the states ratified it. The southern states weren't even in the Union, and were under reconstructive dictatorships when they "ratified" it. It is a squalid amendment - of a rump congress, by a rump congress, for a rump congress.
The 14th Amendment was not needed to apply ANY of the bill of rights to the states. Article VI, Section 2 already covers that need: "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".
No State could deny a right to bear arms, given the above clause.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
excellent question.
The Squalid 14th Amendment [Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc866]
Funny you should link to the 'Squalid' thread, akston, seeing you got your 'states rights' head handed to you on it more than once, by quite a few different FReepers.
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.