Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine
"Always was. All of the Constitution & its Amendments are the "Law of the Land"."
Then answer my "riddle me this" in post #194.
As usual, you're seeing what you want to see. It's been my point all along.
In fact, that preamble states clearly: -- "all or any of the Articles, when ratified" -- will be "part of said Constitution".
What are you quoting from? The Preamble states: "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution".
But just keep telling yourself how goodly you read.
With every post you show off your nitpicking idiocy.
The complete preamble to our BOR's reads:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz..
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution....
FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States,
and President of the Senate.
ATTEST,
JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
SAM A. OTIS Secretary of the Senate
Already did. -- Check the reply to 194.
The first paragraph indicates, beyond doubt, that the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" it introduces apply only to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. There's your context.
I quote the part of the Preamble that's relevant to the discussion, and you call it nitpicking.
You made the erroneous claim:
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.
The first paragraph indicates, beyond doubt, that the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" it introduces apply only to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. There's your context.
Inquest, -- with every post you show off your idiotic habit of seeing only what you want to see, and ignoring or dismissing whatever facts you find inconvenient.
It is reasonable thing that we all have a part to play in creating and maintaining a neutral, safe, free-passage zone in public places in order that we can travel from point A to point B relatively secure in the knowledge that we will not be molested, robbed, detained, or done harm to in any way during the trip.
As the distance between Point A and Point B shortens, say from 20 miles out in the wide open spaces and a couple of blocks in a tightly-populated city, the rules change a little.
In that we have the right to self-determination and freedom of association, we can choose the environment we want to live in. We can contract down some of our rights temporarily in one environment/location and pick them up again in another.
The laws of Commerce are germain to your questions. I have to respect the laws and contracts-in-common that are in force at a time preceeding my arrival. If I don't like the laws, I will set up shop where those laws don't apply and will be sure to be a powerful influence at the city council and county board to insure that the local custom is maintained.
Now, if I were a resident in a community where beer was sold and the city or county wanted to ban the sale of beer, I would have no choice but to sell beer (if I were a beer merchant) and get cited. Then I would have to argue in court that I have been deprived of my rights. Regardless of the outcome, that is the process. Chances are that I would end up owning the city. Heh.
In another instance, let's take the stoopid smoking bans that are sweeping the country. That is an outright violation of private property rights. The state has no compelling interest, as there are no certifiable studies that point to a high probability that second-hand smoke is dangerous to your health. On the contrary, the SCOTUS already trash-canned as fraudulent, the premier statistical study that anti-smokers use to bludgeon city and town councils with to get their bans enacted. Fact is there are other studies that actually show that second-hand smoke does NOT effect your health in any measurable negative way.
I just happen to live in a community where there is no such ban in restaurants, etc., so I have no active interest in pursuing this in court. But I am pretty certain anyone with even a smattering of knowledge would be able to break the ban, and at great expense to the city. But alas, all cowards in the face of fascism. It's common sense that a proprietor should have the choice of whether or not to allow smoking or non-smoking. Let the marketplace decide. There's room for all. (more later.)
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".
You've yet to say how the claim is erroneous.
The bold sentences above 'say' that very clearly, mr nitpicker.
The fact that something is part of the Constitution doesn't mean it applies to the states, as you yourself have acknowledged in regard to Section 9.
You're dreaming about what I "acknowledged".
-- You not only ignore facts that are inconvenient - you ignore everyones words when you find them inconvenient. -- Your generic, nitpicking complaints are becoming a joke on FR. Find some new lines.
"Section 9 is specific to Congress, Section 10 to States."
Likewise I said that the Bill of Rights is specific to the federal government, and you "rebutted" by saying that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. But so is Section 9. If the fact that it's part of the Constitution contradicts my statement, then it contradicts yours equally.
Have fun digging yourself out of that hole.
That 'hole' is only in your head.
After all, in overall context, you're trying to prove the point that States have the 'right' to infringe upon our individual freedoms.
You're dreaming, not me.
#230 sums up your contradictions quite clearly, and I invite any reader to look it over. As for you, I'll let you have the last word, unless you shock me by making an actual point.
Whatever -- feel free to pretend you're not fleeing the field.
I'm afraid you're actually going to have to address his point head on (without trying to change the subject to state "infringement") in order to have any kind of credibility with me.
But, I think we both know you can't. Give it up. Without anything to support your contention you're acting like a troll, and we can't have that on this board.
At least, I won't put up with it. Name calling is no substitute for honest debate.
There are other, fundamental (or natural), rights which you have which may or may not be protected by the state in which you live. For example, you have a fundamental right to protect your self using any means necessary. The state in which you live may protect that right, but exclude guns as a "necessary means". You have a fundamental right to earn a living. The state in which you live may protect that right, but exclude occupations such as prostitution, drug dealing, and selling beer.
If there is a "compelling state interest" in the legislation, then the state may override your fundamental right for the good of the community.
Yes, you have rights. But so do the rest of us.
As to your smoking example, I happen to agree. A private enterprise such as a hotel, bar, or restaurant, should be allowed to set their own rules as to who they will hire, for how much, and who they will serve (which includes smokers/non-smokers).
As you said, market forces should balance the field -- if not, the city could use their power of licensing to regulate the proportions.
Ooh, tpaine, inquest really scored big on that one.
Which one? He's been tossing around his stock complaints, much as you do, and as usual none of them stuck to the wall.
I'm afraid you're actually going to have to address his point head on (without trying to change the subject to state "infringement")
The base point of the thread is States infringing on our rights. -- You clowns conveniently lose track of that in all your nitpicking.
in order to have any kind of credibility with me.
You flatter yourself that anyone here is concerned with your views on credibility, as your own was destroyed long ago by your support for gun prohibitions.
But, I think we both know you can't. Give it up. Without anything to support your contention you're acting like a troll, and we can't have that on this board.
Paulsen, you advocate States 'rights' & are anti individual rights. On a conservative board, you are the troll, not me.
At least, I won't put up with it. Name calling is no substitute for honest debate.
You offer no honest debate, which leads to questions on your motives. You then claim such questions are 'name calling'. -- Round we go.
Change your style and you won't have to "put up with it".
Without a rebuttal, you're simply trolling to stir things up. That's "abuse" in my book, and will be reported as such.
Answer the post.
I see. So the states are not bound by this? They may support their own state religion?
You have a poor memory. You lost the argument.
As per the U.S. Constitution, people have certain unalienable rights which cannot be ceded or taken away. These would include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property ownership as examples.
There are other, fundamental (or natural), rights which you have which may or may not be protected by the state in which you live.
Bizarre theory that there are different 'types' of rights. All of our rights, enumerated or not, are protected. When the State fails to protect, the US Constitution applies.
For example, you have a fundamental right to protect your self using any means necessary.
Correct
The state in which you live may protect that right, but exclude guns as a "necessary means".
Incorrect. - You've contradicted yourself. You cannot defend yourself if you lack the 'means', the weapons to do so. The State has no delegated power to outright prohibit possession of those necessary means, those weapons.
-- We have only granted States the power to reasonably regulate such matters. Excluding guns as a "necessary means" of self protection is not reasonable.
You have a fundamental right to earn a living. The state in which you live may protect that right, but exclude occupations such as prostitution, drug dealing, and selling beer.
Unreasonable. -- Criminal acts are dealt with in Courts before juries.
If there is a "compelling state interest" in the legislation, then the state may override your fundamental right for the good of the community.
Good grief, the Communitarian line, blatantly advocated on a conservative board, by a man that just accused me of being a troll. Go figure.
Yes, you have rights. But so do the rest of us. As to your smoking example, I happen to agree. A private enterprise such as a hotel, bar, or restaurant, should be allowed to set their own rules as to who they will hire, for how much, and who they will serve (which includes smokers/non-smokers). As you said, market forces should balance the field -- if not, the city could use their power of licensing to regulate the proportions.
235 RP
Paulsen, you are unequaled in your ability to self-rationalize infringements upon our individual rights in order to advance "the good of the community".
Go back to DU to peddle your wares.
Before I address your other points, I'd like to know what the compelling interest would be in preventing me from selling beer? Pretend for a moment that I live in a community of 100 people, all of whom have been drinking my beer for years. In fact, all 100 of them sell their own beer as well.
As time progresses, a few of them decide to stop drinking and selling beer for one reason or another. As time progresses further, the non-drinkers become a majority on the town council, perhaps five of them.
Can you think of a compelling 'state' interest that would empower a majority on the town council to arbitrarily stop the sale of beer in my community?
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.