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

To: tpaine; tacticalogic
"Joe, why do you want States to have the power to infringe upon our individual liberties?"

If the citizens of the individual states wanted to limit their state government, all they had to do was pass a state constitutional amendment.

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, ratify a BOR two years later that SPECIFICALLY says "Congress shall make no law ..." and say it also applies to the states.

Riddle me this. If the Constitution also applied to the states, then Article I, Section 9 (No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed) also applied to the states, correct?

Then why the need for Article I, Section 10, which says, " No state shall ... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, ..."?

194 posted on 10/30/2004 8:11:04 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
paulsen, why do you want States to have the power to infringe upon our individual liberties?

If the citizens of the individual states wanted to limit their state government, all they had to do was pass a state constitutional amendment.

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?

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, ratify a BOR two years later that SPECIFICALLY says "Congress shall make no law ..." and say it also applies to the states.

Sigh.. For the umpteenth time, -- "Congress shall make no law ..." applies only to the 'establishment' clause.-- A point Justice Thomas reiterated in his last opinion, and we all argued over. You lost that debate as usual.

Riddle me this. If the Constitution also applied to the states, then Article I, Section 9 (No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed) also applied to the states, correct? Then why the need for Article I, Section 10, which says, " No state shall ... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, ..."?

Section 9 is specific to Congress, Section 10 to States. -- No riddle.

198 posted on 10/30/2004 8:55:27 AM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
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.

204 posted on 10/30/2004 9:20:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | 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