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 The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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 ...
The Squalid thread was my finest hour - embarrassing for you, Tpaine.
And the 3rd. And the 7th. And the Grand Jury clause of the 5th.
Why? Because they have not been incorporated. They only apply to the federal government.
The Squalid thread was my finest hour - embarrassing for you, Tpaine.
The following was your finest hour?
Along this line, though Tpaine, if a state voted to establish a religion, or even ban free speech, say before an election, I would support it, because only Congress can violate the first amendment.
At some point you just have to trust a state not to do stupid things like limit free speech.
87 H.Akston
How embarrassing for you, Hugh.
Next you will admit a State has the power to infringe on our RKBA's, just like paulsen.
At some point you just have to trust a state not to do stupid things like limit free speech. - me
What's so embarrassing about that, tpaine? Do you think the text of the 1st amendment prohibits a state from establishing a religion?
You can't even read what I write. For example:
"Next you will admit a State has the power to infringe on our RKBA's, just like paulsen." - tpaine
You wrote the above, after I had written:
"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. "
I had already said the opposite of what you predicted I was going to say! You're dead wrong. Again, you have embarrassed yourself.
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823"- DC
So your point is that I shouldn't "squeeze" the supremacy clause to mean that the States gave up their power to, say, infringe on the right to bear arms?
OK. I'll take Mr. Jefferson's advice. I don't think the Founders would have had a problem with making the right to bear arms "the supreme law of the land", esp. considering what they had just been through, and it's not much of a "squeeze" to get that meaning out of the clear text of Article VI. By the way, why DID they single out Congress in the first Amendment, and leave the other amendments so broadly applicable, if they all appled to only Congress? Which one of the Bill of Rights would the ratifying conventions NOT have wished to be the "supreme law of the land", and NOT have wanted their state "judges" to be "bound by"? Ans: None. Reflecting on the "spirit manifested in the debates", I conclude that that nothing in the first 10 Amendments that was left broadly applicable, was not to be "incorporated" at that time some 80 years prior to the "ratification" of the squalid 14th Amendment. The supremacy clause "incorporates" and calls on "the Judges in every State" to pay attention to the US Constitution to see if it supersedes state law. Marshall was wrong in that 5th Amendment case in MD.
I think the "incorporation doctrine" was an unnecessary ruse, sought by slicksters who were trying to prop up the legitimacy of an illegitimate amendment.
I question the entire idea of "incorporation". I think it's a fraud, and another opportunity (created by the squalid 14th Amendment) for judicial activism. If incorporation was not a fraud, then the principle would be applied to all amendments. There would be no "selective" incopropration, which is just subjective judicial micromanagement of state affairs.
"--- only Congress can violate the first amendment."
-22-
" --- The 14th Amendment was not needed to apply ANY of the bill of rights to the states."
-hugh-
_____________________________________
Justice Thomas just commented in 'Newdow' that only the establishment clause of the 1st applied to Congress, and that all the rest of the rights mentioned are individual freedoms, not to be infringed upon by any level of government, fed/state/local..
Makes sense to me
"That's funny, the only time I've ever really seen tpaine "love" big centralized government was when it was protecting our Rights as ennumerated in the BoR from intrusion at any level. I've never seen him support Federal control over local schools for instance." - DC
When tpaine bashes the south, he cozies up to the 14th Amendment. When he cozies up to the 14th Amendment, he actually does support Federal control over the things you say he doesn't. Maybe he doesn't realize he's doing it. But I'll give you an example or two: "equal protection" can mean to some judges that Casey Martin gets to ride in a golf cart, and that the Supreme court controls the rules of golf, and not the PGA. (the ADA has its basis in the 14th Amendment) Equal protection to another judge can mean that a white kid has to ride 1 hour in a bus to go to school with black kids, when the state has already built a school using his parent's tax money that is 5 min. away. (busing is the fruit of more 14th-Amendment based legislation)
I'm the opposite of a nanny stater.
Many things we are plagued with today - much judicial activism - originates from the 14th Amendment, which in turn has its origin in vindictiveness against the South, and I've seen that flavor of vindictiveness in some of tpaine's posts.
OK, so Justice Thomas reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ",
and says it also restricts State Governments? I read it as one sentence, beginning with "Congress shall make no law..."
How do you figure that applies to the states?
Assuming he said what you said he said, he's wrong.
d'You worry that nothing protects the people from their state government?
Did you know the VA Constitution is far more protective of religious freedom than the first amendment is? Is it amazing to you that a State's const. can protect freedom better than the Federal? (and a SOUTHERN State's to boot!)
Here is some info everyone should be aware of before they get to distraught over whether the 14th Amendment means these privileges and immunities or those priviliges and immunities, or incorporates this amendment, or doesn't incorporate that amendment, or says seperate is equal or doesn't say separate is equal - The whole thing is a fraud, and built on a foundation of sand:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm
No "squeezing" necessary. Those powers were delegated from the State, to the FedGov. In regards to things like RKBA Rights, I liken it to having thirteen seperate Sheriffs. Instead of ADDING another Sheriff in the Nations Capitol, they gave up their local Sheriffs for One that applies the protection of the Law equally to all 13 States. Don't take my word for it, go back and re-read the Federalist, and more importantly the anti-Federalist, writings on setting up the new government and what powers who was going to get.
From all the heavy, heartfelt sentiment EVERY Founder expressed on Freemen having a right to arms makes it pretty damn clear it was universal.
I think the "incorporation doctrine" was an unnecessary ruse, sought by slicksters who were trying to prop up the legitimacy of an illegitimate amendment.
I agree with that sentiment.It "shouldn't" have been necessary. As it turns out, "something" needed to be done. Now, something may need to be done again before we lose the whole Nation.
I love this Country. I want my children to have MORE reasons to love it as they grow. Not this trend we are on where freedom is fast vanishing.
Which part of Judge Perez' historical account of the fraudulency of the 14th Amendment is wrong?
You're the one on the ship that is cutting across your own tow line, as you cheer your captain on.
It sounds like we're pretty much on the same page. I buy the 'sheriff' analogy.
"Justice Thomas just commented in 'Newdow' that only the establishment clause of the 1st applied to Congress, and that all the rest of the rights mentioned are individual freedoms, not to be infringed upon by any level of government, fed/state/local.." - tpaine
"Makes sense to me"- tpaine
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ",
How do you figure that applies to the states?
H.Akston wrote:
Which part of Judge Perez' historical account of the fraudulency of the 14th Amendment is wrong?
______________________________________
Where it said:
"We learned that the 14th Amendment was:
1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset;
2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance;
3) had nothing to do with giving freed slaves citizenship status and instead created a new status of citizenship for all Americans (U.S. citizens rather than Citizens of our respective states) which in effect enslaved us all;
4) dissolved and replaced constitutional law with the 'Laws of Commerce and Admiralty'... and
5) in a very real sense became a new constitution within the constitution.
I agree. The USSC (ab)uses the 14th the same way Congress (ab)uses the Commerce Clause.
Yes, "If you liked the Commerce Clause"... you'll be absolutely thrilled with the powers the squalid 14th Amendment gives the feds.
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.