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 The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.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 ...
Thank you for the thanks for a ping!!!
Of course, absent such power being given to the State via Amendment of the State Constitution, then they cannot rightfully pass a simple law and still have a legal leg to stand on in our Republic.
As in the California example, and supposing that the Federal Constitution did not already prohibit such a ban, a ban on so-called "assault weapons" is illegal as there is no power given to them in their Constitution for such a thing. Search their Constitution, here for things like "firearms", "weapons", "arms", and "guns". Nothing will pop up as their Constitution does not authorize them to regulate such things. Their LEGISLATURE and COURTS are writing law without a basis for having the power to do so excepting of course that they control the police forces in their State. Essentially a dictatorship where the dictator is changed out periodically.
A Constitution is a contract with the People. WE are saying "this you shall do this and NOTHING else". If it ain't in there, then that governing body CANNOT legitimately have ANY power in that area. Regardless of what meaning an activist court can find buried in penumbra's and emanations. It should, IMO, be Treason for them to even try to grab more power via legislative of judicial malfeasance.
LOLOL!
Virginia has outlawed prostitution.
Sure hugh, just like CA has "outlawed" assault weapons..
Dream on. No doubt they have a ton of stupid laws about it, some legal, some not.
But, -- in a Constitutional sense, it is not prohibited. - Just over-regulated.
Dead Corpse wrote:
A Constitution is a contract with the People. WE are saying "this you shall do this and NOTHING else". If it ain't in there, then that governing body CANNOT legitimately have ANY power in that area.
Exactly DC.. Well put.
-- My point to akston was about a State power to enact 'prohibitions', -- to "outlaw" aspects of our life, liberty, or property by fiat decrees.
- States must use due process of law to prohibit behavior or 'outlaw' property. They must have reasonable cause to criminalize acts & objects.
Nothing in our US Constitution or in the various State Constitutions gives any level of government the power to infringe upon our basic individual rights.
Prostitution, is not one of those areas. Unless you were in Detroit trying to hire a Dallas hooker that is... Then, technically, it would fall under interstate commerce and could be "regulated". Although, regulations that completely prohibit action were not what the Founders explicitily meant by "regulation". Bans were bans and regulations were guidelines. Never were the two supposed to mean the same thing.
A state also has the power to outlaw prostitution. - H.Akston
"No hugh" - tpaine
North Carolina has outlawed prostitution.
"Mason would be very distressed if the BOR were interpreted to increase the power of the judicial branch of the federal government over the states."
He was much happier, as your earlier quote noted, AFTER the BOR was drafted and committed to, but there is no reason to believe that the Bill of Rights changed what he acknowledged that the unamended Constitution already did - bind the judges in every state.
Even the 10th Amendment did not help:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
A state's power to ignore what's in the Constitution, is a power prohibited by the supremacy clause, to the States.
"There is just no way to square the use of the supremacy clause to expand any federal power or any federal branch's power with the intent of the Bill of Rights."
There is a way, if you consider the text of the supremacy clause, Mason's own observations of what it did, and the fact that Mason was so strongly opposed to what that text did to the states, that he didn't sign it.
If I sound as if I relish the thought of the Federal courts having the power to bind the State courts to the Constitution, I don't mean to.
In defense of what you're saying, prior to Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court was not firmly established as the final interpreter of the Constitution. Marshall created that doctrine, which I find considerable justification for in Article III. My position is based on an acceptance of the Marbury v. Madison precedent. I would accept that I'm wrong about the federal judicial branch having power to enforce the BOR on the states, if it is wrong to interpret Article III such that the Supreme Court oversees the State Courts. If it did not, then the State Courts would still be bound to restrain their legislatures by the Bill of Rights, but they would have to answer to no one, in their interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and what effect if any it had on their State's declaration of rights.
Come to think of it, Marshall's doctrine in Barron, that the Feds have no power to enforce the 5th Amendment on the States, seems to conflict with his earlier doctrine in Marbury that the high Federal Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution.
Virginia has outlawed prostitution.
Sure hugh, just like CA has "outlawed" assault weapons.. Dream on. No doubt they have a ton of stupid laws about it, some legal, some not. But, -- in a Constitutional sense, it is not prohibited. "
Is prostitution a basic individual right?
Will you be suing VA and/or NC soon, for outlawing prostitution? I want to come sit in the courtroom and watch.
You are dreadfully confused over the difference between a state having the power to make a law, and an individual having the ability get away with violating it. You think that if an individual can violate a law, it proves that the State's law was unconstitutional, or null and void!
Tell me tpaine, can a state outlaw drunk driving?
You are dreadfully confused over the difference between a state having the power to make a law, and an individual having the ability get away with violating it. You think that if an individual can violate a law, it proves that the State's law was unconstitutional, or null and void!
Tell me tpaine, can a state outlaw drunk driving?
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of these here United States has NOTHING to do with hunting! It has everything to do with tyranny and the defense of the People against it.
It seems to me a severe fault of your BOR doctrine that one needs to assume those who wanted a Bill of Rights were dupes of the 'consolidationists'!
Isn't it reasonable to suppose they knew what they were doing and that Mason knew the amendments would only decrease the power of the federal government over the states, just as he wanted?
He did know a thing or two about Bills of Rights after all.
Barron fits perfectly with Marbury.
In Marbury Marshall ruled that the court could not exercise powers that were not given to them by the Constitution (issuing mandamus writs), just as he ruled in Barron that they could not exercise powers not given to them by the Constitution (enforcing the Bill of rights upon the states).
H.Akston now writes:
N Carolina has outlawed prostitution.
______________________________________
Sure hugh, just like CA has "outlawed" assault weapons..
Dream on. No doubt they have a ton of
stupid laws about it, some legal, some not.
But, -- in a Constitutional sense, it is not prohibited. - Just over-regulated.
______________________________________
Dead Corpse wrote:
A Constitution is a contract with the People. WE are saying "this you shall do this and NOTHING else". If it ain't in there, then that governing body CANNOT legitimately have ANY power in that area.
______________________________________
Exactly DC.. Well put.
-- My point to akston was about a State power to enact 'prohibitions', --
-- to "outlaw" aspects of our life, liberty, or property by fiat decrees.
- States must use due process of law to prohibit behavior or 'outlaw' property.
They must have reasonable cause to criminalize acts & objects.
Nothing in our US Constitution or in the various State Constitutions gives any level of government the power to infringe upon our basic individual rights.
-tpaine-
Virginia & N. Carolina have outlawed prostitution.
Sure hugh, just like CA has "outlawed" assault weapons.. Dream on.
No doubt they have a ton of stupid laws about it, some legal, some not. But, -- in a Constitutional sense, it is not prohibited. "
"States only 'think' they have prohibitive powers.
For alcohol it's a moot point. -- Any adult in any State can order booze delivered from out of state sources, regardless of State 'laws'."
You are dreadfully confused over the difference between a state having the power to make a law, and an individual having the ability get away with violating it.
You think that if an individual can violate a law, it proves that the State's law was unconstitutional, or null and void!
You're making up what I "think" hugh.
State laws that violate our BOR's are null & void, thus people ignore them and "get away" with it.
Tell me tpaine, can a state outlaw drunk driving?
Drunken driving is a criminal act on public lands & throughfares.
Drunken driving on your own private land cannot be "outlawed'. -- Get the principle hugh?
Is prostitution a basic individual right?.
Private sexual acts between consenting adults can't be prohibited/outlawed/criminalized.
Commercial aspects of the trade can be reasonably regulated. -- Got it yet hugh?
mrsmith wrote:
That would make Mason the fool for insisting upon a Bill of Rights
wouldn't it?
_____________________________________
How droll. Two bumpkins arguing that some Framers were the fools.
Mason? Fool? No, he was one of Virginia's great dissenters. He insisted on the Bill of Rights to blunt some of the damage (consolidation) to state autonomy that the Supremacy clause did. If the Bill of Rights had protected the State judiciary from the Federal, he probably would have assented.
A state also has the power to outlaw prostitution. - H.Akston
"No hugh" - tpaine
South Carolina has outlawed prostitution.
Private sexual acts between consenting adults can't be prohibited/outlawed/criminalized. Commercial aspects of the trade can be reasonably regulated. -- Got it yet hugh?
Got it? Yes, you're definitely afraid to answer that question. The trade itself is not merely "reasonably regulated", but prohibited outright, in 49 states, excercising their 10th Amendment rights with their republican form of government.
paine, you don't even know what you're talking about, much less what me and mrsmith are discussing.
A state also has the power to outlaw prostitution. - H.Akston
No hugh, States have only the power to reasonably regulate the commercial aspects of prostitution. The power to prohibit 'sin' has never been delegated to them, or to any level of any government.
South Carolina has outlawed prostitution.
Unconstitutionally, just like CA has 'outlawed' assault weapons.
Give up the pretense Hugh, and admit you're allied with the gungrabbing blue nosed prohibitionist cultists.
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.