The Federalism Debate [And 'States Rights']

Cato Institue ^ | 10/28/04 | Rodger Pilon

[tpaine]

robertpaulsen wrote:

I never said they wrote it.

Pedantic weaseling.

Is an amendment part of the constitution?

Yes

And if someone says an amendment is unconstitutional, aren't they saying the constitution is unconstitutional?

No, they are saying the amendment is unconstitutional; -- as both the 16th & 18th certainly are, -- beyond question from a rational persons view.

[tpaine]

I'm not saying that States can violate it.

[robertpaulsen]

"The 'moral' majority in CA prevent gun owners here from passing a RKBA's type Amendment to the CA Constitution. -- Do you find such majority rule acceptable?"

Moral, immoral. The citizens of California have the right to live as they choose to live, provided their choice does not violate the constitution.

[tacticalogic]

They would certainly not come up with some convoluted scheme that sets up a federal government, include an Article VI which only tpaine and tacticalogic think apply the document to the states also,

You can't manage to correctly parse a sentence according to standard rules of English grammar, but you can read minds, eh? Wow.

[robertpaulsen]

Other than Emerson (which was eventually decided on other than second amendment issues), name me one federal law that was challenged at any level on second amendment grounds.

[tpaine]

The 'moral' majority in CA prevent gun owners here from passing a RKBA's type Amendment to the CA Constitution. -- Do you find such majority rule acceptable?

Moral, immoral. The citizens of California have the right to live as they choose to live, provided their choice does not violate the constitution.

There you go with your circular 'logic' again paulsen..
Their choice does violate the US Constitution. -- And my RKBA's.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another." - T. Jefferson

[robertpaulsen]

"Section 9 is specific to Congress"

Where does it say that?

[Eastbound]

"Sorry. I meant to say, "Drooling, mindless, idiotic babbling"."

LOL! Some would say it is the 'unknown tongue' of a free man. If you can't understand the words, at least sit back and enjoy the music. ;>

A free man is not a free man until he learns how to think and act like a free man. Otherwise, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

The Constitution was written by and for a free people to perpetuate and protect that freedom.

If the laws don't fit, you must aquit.

[inquest]

You said that it was specific to Congress. Unless you're operating under a different meaning of the word "specific", then you're claiming that it applies only to Congress, and not to the states.

[tpaine]

The federal government has never been challenged on second amendment grounds -- hence, no enforcement.

Bull. Such challenges have been made, but the USSC has refused to hear them.

Other than Emerson (which was eventually decided on other than second amendment issues), name me one ~federal~ law that was challenged at any level on second amendment grounds.

Emerson is enough to counter your BS 'point'.
-- Go play your pedantic, nitpicking word games elsewhere, paulsen. -- We all know that the Federal Court system is set up to make challenges "on second amendment grounds" damn near impossible to get to the USSC.

Why you support such a system is the question. One you can't answer.

[tpaine]

Section 9 is specific to Congress

Where does it say that?

It doesn't need to, as the context makes it obvious, to anyone but a nitpicker.

[robertpaulsen]

"It doesn't need to ..."

Ah, but it needed to in Article I, Section 8 though.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm not saying that States can violate it."

Hey, weasel. What are you saying?

Are you saying that Article I, Section 9 is also binding on the states by the Supremacy Clause?

[tpaine]

Whatever.

Do you really think your constant inane nitpicking wins arguments?

All you've accomplished is proving you're a disruptor, imo. -- Which is fine with me.

[tpaine]

Section 9 is specific to Congress
tpaine

______________________________________


How can you say that? Section 9 is part of the "supreme law of the land" from Article VI that you constantly point out - "anything in the laws or constitutions of the states to the contrary notwithstanding". How can you say that states can violate it?
200 inquest

______________________________________


I'm not saying that States can violate it.
202 tpaine

______________________________________


What are you saying?
Are you saying that Article I, Section 9 is also binding on the states by the Supremacy Clause?

______________________________________


Always was. All of the Constitution & its Amendments are the "Law of the Land".

[given that the 16th should be repealed]

[tacticalogic]

Ah, but it needed to in Article I, Section 8 though.

Article I, Section 8 isn't applied to the federal government as a whole, but to a specific branch of the federal government, and so it was necessary to explicity specify which branch.

[inquest]

Section 9 is specific to Congress

[Where does it say that?]

It doesn't need to, as the context makes it obvious, to anyone but a nitpicker.

It's good that you're finally seeing that context has a role to play in this discussion. The explicitly stated context of the Bill of Rights (as explained in the Preamble thereto) makes it obvious to anyone who knows how to read, that it's specific to the federal government.

[Eastbound]

Y'all might want to take a moment and check out this thread. Some material relates to the topic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1262877/posts

[tpaine]

Section 9 is specific to Congress

[Where does it say that?]

It doesn't need to, as the context makes it obvious, to anyone but a nitpicker.

It's good that you're finally seeing that context has a role to play in this discussion.

It's good to see you conceding my point. Thanks.

The explicitly stated context of the Bill of Rights (as explained in the Preamble thereto) makes it obvious to anyone who knows how to read, that it's specific to the federal government.

I read good, and neither the preambles context, nor it's actual words, make your conclusion in any way 'obvious'.

In fact, that preamble states clearly: -- "all or any of the Articles, when ratified" -- will be "part of said Constitution".
-- A Constitution that specifically says in Art VI it is the "Law of the Land". -- The "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".

In context, your position is made ludicrous

[tpaine]

Thanks for the link.

Ed has been posting an interesting type of agit-prop on FR for a couple of weeks now.

I noticed in a quick scan that he had posted one of JR's 'misson statement's'.

--- "The preservation and complete restoration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with special emphasis on the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments and, of course, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- free of government intervention."
-Jim Robinsion-

The above does indeed relate
to the topic here.. Any comment Ed?