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 The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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 ...
.
Bizzare comment akston, why do you imagine I hate that thread? I've had it bookmarked since it first ran.
Because you love Big Central.
"It is incredible, seeing the author completely ignores the supremacy clause in Art. VI. "
at least you learned something from our past conversations.
Why do you Nanny Staters have such a hard on for taking away peoples freedom? Do you really believe that there should be no common set of "freedoms" and "Rights" that ALL US Citizens should enjoy?
Stop trying to squeeze more meaning out of the words than are written.
But they are.
And the courts, both state and federal, have said that the above clause does not apply to the second amensment.
And those courts that have done so are wrong. Very wrong. There is no clause in the Constitution that says that "this is Supreme, accept for the Second Amendment". We shouldn't have NEEDED something like the 14th. Idiots like you are why they tried.
...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Where the FedGov was GIVEN power, it is Supreme. The problem of course being that legislators are always trying to find ways around it to gain more power. Hence todays out of control FedGov upsurping State power in ways they were never meant to, and in fact we were warned against.
Efforts to disarm "We the People" were one of those things we were warned about. NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Brady Bill are all blatant violations of the Second. They are quite clearly "infringements" by any reasonable definition. Local and State statutes violate the Second through the Supremacy clause. Unless someone has dug up another definition of "Supreme"? Only when called up for militia duty does our Right to Keep and Bear Arms become subject to "regulation". Only then because you would then be acting in a Militia capacity and expected to follow the orders of your Officers.
You've used every device, including outright lies, to try and push your position. Just admit you hate guns and would prefer to see the Second Amendment repealed.
"NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Brady Bill are all blatant violations of the Second."
How do you do this, Dead Corpse? You conflict yourself in the same post.
The above legislation was found constitutional -- they are SUPREME, just like you want. The above legislation was never even challenged as a violation of the second amendment, ever.
No, just as there is no clause saying that abortion is legal.
Did you actually look for such a clause, Dead Corpse? Were you paging through the U.S. Constitution, mumbling, "Now, where is it?" Unbelievable that this is your argument.
No clause is necessary to say that an amendment which is ONLY applicable to the federal government is not applicable to the states. It's just common sense, Dead Corpse.
Yes it never ceases to amaze me how a judge can weasel around the plain meaning of the written word.
The Constitution says the judges in every state shall be bound to everything the Constitution says, that it supersedes any contradictory state law, and yet some judges say that a state can contradict the 2nd amendment.
We don't impeach enough judges.
You have yet to explain how it can be "found" Constitutional when the clear language of the Constitution says otherwise.
You contradict YOURSELF in your post. You first say it was "found Constitutional", then continue on to say it has never been tested.
My entire point is that such legislation should never have been passed in any form to begin with. The US Constitution makes it quite clear that no infringements are lawful. Period. A simple Law cannot be more "powerful" than the document that gives the government its power in teh first place. That would be like saying water has more solidity than ice.
I should have known better than to get a straight answer out of you. Tell us truthfully, do you work for Ted Kennedy? Or Charles Schumer?
Obviously it isn't as you keep ignoring the "Supremem Law of the Land" portion of the Constitution.
And I hav efrequently stated the abortion, like murder, is a State issue... not a Federal one.
You are such an ass...
Impeachment would be a good start. Considering the make up of our State and Federal Legislatures, and how long it takes them to get ANYTHING done, not too mention their unwillingness to remove someone working to expand their legislative reach,... it could be more efficious in the long run to just bring back tar and feathering.
Remember that only around 5% of the American Colonists rose up against the King.
It's pretty obvious you never learn anything, hugh.
Did you really have to flag him in? The guy makes me ashamed to be living in Texas.
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.