"Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states."
Re-visiting here, as I would like to use this to say that even though many feel that the second amendment was not an incorporated (right to bear arms) and was written to limit the powers of the federal government, the amendment makes no sense unless it is INFERRING that the right to bear arms is a right already held by the people. Otherwise, why even write the amendment?
The amendment was written as a further check on the federal government not to infringe on that right specifically.
If the federal government acknowledges that right is held by the people, in the clear wording of the amendment, Article VI is a further safeguard for that right, as Article VI tells the state that it cannot infringe on that right either by virtue of the fact that the right keep and bear arms is a right held by the people.
Let me repeat: neither the fedguv nor the state can infringe upon the right to bear arms. The amendment does not have to be incorporated, as it is already an admission and acknowledgment that the people's right right to keep and bear arms was pre-existing. How plain can it get?
How many times does the Constitution have to tell us that it loves us? ;>
BTW, here's a couple more 'conservatives' attempting the same argument:
Is the Federal Government Supreme and Above the States?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1266734/posts?page=92
First for tpaine. You say that I want the state to be able to regulate morals. This is important, so let me be clear. The CONS has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what I want. I am a sick, sick man and I LOVE guns way more than I should, probably way more than both you do. May God Almighty strike me dead this very moment if I am lying. Again -- I LOVE GUNS, and I swear by the Almighty again, that few things in this world make me more purely outraged than when some sub-human, scum-sucking, piece of liberal filth, unfit to tongue my testicles says that the 2nd amendment means that militias are acceptable. Therefore, I would LOVE it deeply and truly if the BOR applied to the states. Truly, I would. I would also love it if the CONS dictated that every American on Earth send me one dollar, once each year. But, just because I would prefer both of those things, does not mean that I will pretend that they are indeed in the CONS. I would indeed like it if the BOR applied to the states, but it just was not intended that way. Now, for eastbound. How do we know it wasn't intended. First, are you not aware of the incorporation doctrine?
1. If the BOR was intended to apply to the states, why did we have the inc. doctrine some 80 years after the cons came into being?
2. Why does the 1st amend say "CONGRESS shall make no law"?
3. Why did VA and others have state supported churches well after the cons came into being?
4. Did you not read the quotation from Barron v. Baltimore posted by that other guy? (I forget his name) I had mistakenly referred to that case as Mccullough v. MD. But did you read the quote?
5. If you disagree with that ruling, you still must accept as historical fact that for 80 years, the FED GOV, the Supreme Court, AND the state govs operated under the assumption that the BOR did not apply to the states. Were they all wrong for 80 years?
One more thing -- I hope you'll agree that I've been polite. No remarks about delusion or incoherence, etc. You were certainly polite to me, so I responded in kind. I really want to keep it that way. Thanks.
If the federal government acknowledges that right is held by the people, in the clear wording of the amendment, Article VI is a further safeguard for that right, as Article VI tells the state that it cannot infringe on that right either by virtue of the fact that the right keep and bear arms is a right held by the people.
Let me repeat: neither the fedguv nor the state can infringe upon the right to bear arms. The amendment does not have to be incorporated, as it is already an admission and acknowledgment that the people's right right to keep and bear arms was pre-existing. How plain can it get?
Ken H:
Is it your position that a State can violate a personal right?
Government is the controlled, and presumably just, infringement of rights in the service of preserving and defending the rights of others. So, to state categorically that recognition of a preexisting right implies that the right may never be infringed by the state seems mistaken.
Actually, all rights are inherent in the person, weather currently recognized or not. Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.