Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mrsmith
None?

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers

258 posted on 07/16/2004 6:11:00 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]


To: Dead Corpse
The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
John Jay, Federalist No. 2, 1787

260 posted on 07/16/2004 6:37:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]

To: Dead Corpse
supplementing your citation here:

"The ...Bill [of Rights]... establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority [neither state legislature nor Congress] has a right to deprive them of."--Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers

mrsmith's statement was: "there are NONE[ of the founders], I repeat NONE, asking for a Bill of Rights to give the federal government more power over the states or any person. Nor any after it was passed saying that it did."

(By the way, I don't think Albert Gallatin was a founder but he did see that the new BOR restricted the States too.)

There are two things going on here with "incorporation" that shouldn't be confused. A 2nd Amendment right can be "incorporated" into a State Constitution by the supremacy clause (as Mason intimated), but the Congress STILL wouldn't have the power to enforce that on a state, because that was a reserved power. It wasn't till section 5 of the 14th Amendment came along that Congress could meddle with State due process. That's how we got busing and equal distribution of wealth (what "equal protection" means to some some Federals) and other do-good liberal acts.

264 posted on 07/16/2004 9:06:13 AM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson