Replies

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.

Re: Gallatin
Harvard Teacher. Pennsylvania State Legislator. Secretary of the Treasury from 1801-1814 under two different Presidents.

If he didn't know what was going on, who would?

My only other nit to pick would be that BECAUSE of the Supremacy Clause, the Second should NEED no "incorperation". Incorperation is a judical fantasy where laws do not apply unless they have been ruled on by some black robed pervert.

The 14th may have its flaws, but Incorperation is Black Death on wheels.

"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."

You highlighted the wrong part. I agree with the above statement -- an unalienable right cannot be taken away, at least, not without individual due process. The unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property are an example.

But the right to keep and bear arms is not an unalienable right -- how can we forbid all 16-year-olds from buying a gun? Can we take his life? Can we lock him up? Can we take the property he, for example, receives in a will?

The RKBA is a fundamental right, protected (or not) by the state.

Of course the much edited quote of Gallatin does not call for federal power over the state.
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
"Rights of the people at large": IE collective rights at the state level, "the majority" refers to congress.

Gallatin was not a Founder but an influential person. He was a member of the 1788 Harrisonburg Pennsylvania convention that requested a Bill of Rights to assure that:

" every reserve of the rights of individuals, made by the several constitutions of the states in the Union, to the citizens and inhabitants of each state respectively, shall remain inviolate, except so far as they are expressly and manifestly yielded or narrowed by the national Constitution. "

"he did see that the new BOR restricted the States too"

I trust you are disabused of that impression you recieved from the dishonest quote you were given.

If you believe there are any quotes from Founders, or even merely important participants in uur early republic, that say the states were restricted by any part of the Bill of Rights feel free to ping me.

The earliest I've seen that contention made is by Rawles circa 1830's.