Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
(aptly named)
Trite. Being insulted by a gun grabbing freak really doesn't phase me all that much. I still think you are a VPC troll.
No contradiction at all. The state (the people of the state) decides which rights it will protect, including gun rights. Some states allow cities to ban guns -- Illinois is one of them. You may not own or possess a handgun in Chicago, Morton Grove, Wilmette, and who knows how many others.
If the RKBA was deemed fundamental to liberty and was incorporated, then that right (defined by SCOTUS, btw) would be applicable to every state and city.
SCOTUS defined the 1st amendment, and that definition applies to all the states. Do you want SCOTUS to define the second amendment and apply that defnition to all the states?
Be careful what you wish for.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
When a State ratifies the Constitution, and attendant Amendments, they legally bind themselves to those resolutions. When the plain language is objectionable, they change it and send it back to Congress for a re-vote on the new language. Of the 13 original States, not one objected to the concept of the Second Amendment, only that the language be strong enough worded to protect the Right it embodies.
Little piss-ants in local and State governments hate that feeling that the people themselves should be protected from their intrusions on such a fundamental subject. That they should have a Freedom that might jeopardize their power or fall outside their judicial review.
And yet over the years, legal butt munchers come along and support the logic used by the likes of gun grabbers everywhere. Always you insist you are pro-firearms, but then turn around and do everything you can to push the gun grabber logic and twisted legal ramblings.
Troll I named you. And quite aptly as well.
The State ratifying the Amendment is all the "incorperation" it requires.
Thanks for playing, Dead Corpse. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you out back.
Figures. You're wrong on everything else.
And yes, the specific powers of the Fed Gov are supreme over the States. Can a State declare war? Sign a treaty? Does a State court over-ride the USSC?
Do you even have a CLUE what a Republic is?
No, you don't have that right. SCOTUS hasn't said whether it agrees or not. Being very particular about the purity of cases it covers, SCOTUS hasn't seen a case fit for ruling on that point yet.
Whenever the question of incorporating an enumerated right came before SCOTUS, it has incorporated the right in question - indicating in all likelyhood it will incorporate the 2nd as well, so long as SCOTUS (a) gets a suitable case, and (b) gets a backbone.
the second amendment does not apply to the states, despite your "understanding".
The Bill Of Rights enumerates pre-existing rights, rights which the people have outside any government. The states are to respect those pre-existing rights as well, and the 14th Amendment states that in no uncertain terms.
James Madison himself submitted an amendment which would have applied some of the BOR to the states, and it was defeated.
Interesting. Source?
The 14th amendment prevents the states from depriving "liberty" from any person.
The 14th amdendment prevents the states from abridging the rights of the citizens of the USA. That includes "equal protection", which would be violated if one's RKBA is abridged in one state but not another.
Over the years, the courts have been trying to determine those rights which are fundamental to liberty, and should therefore be protected by the state, also.
The core premise you and others express is that rights do not exist unless granted by the whole of government.
As of this date, the RKBA is not one of them. Should it be?
Should the people have the right to keep and bear arms? Of course! By your reasoning, the feds can't infringe on it but all 50 states can totally prohibit it if they like - do you seriously think that possibility would have been approved of by the Founding Fathers?
How many quotes, direct from the Founders who wrote the Constitution and from the Constitution itself, are required before it finally breaks through that obstinate mask of yours? Any rational person would have done so already.
Ergo, you are a shill and a troll. It isn't that you can't see the truth being laid out before you, it is that you don't LIKE that truth. You don't stand to profit from it. You have a vested interest in the continued abuse of our Rights. There can be no other explanation.
Although if you do have one, I really am interested in hearing it.
Read the damn thing before you make a fool of yourself. If you would have, you would have seen liitle clues like, "the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation.
You are making the U.S. Constitution a national constitution when you say it applies to the states.
Nice try Sarah...
I don't need the right protected by the state.
I need the state to not infringed that right.
There's a difference.
Again, you presume a right isn't unless it is protected.
We contend the right exists despite infringement.
The whole argument for not including the BoR was that rights plainly existed without being "protected", and by enumerating them to "protect" them people would be confused as to the source of rights. Plainly, you are confused as to the source of rights, as you argue "arms" does not include certain items unless the state says so.
The 9th amendment says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus, the 10th clearly says that States are prohibited from exercising some powers reserved to the people.
-- Prime example; -- "the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed."
I like that ... "clearly says". The powers, not the rights.
The people clearly have the RKBA's, and the State clearly does not have the power to infringe on that right, -- quibble & nitpick as you may.
The state (or the people of that state, same thing) retains the power to regulate arms, and the Founding Fathers wouldn't have it any other way.
This thread is full of examples where the FF approved of our right to own cannons. - It's ludicrous of you to claim they would want a State to have the power to infringe on that right.
robertpaulsen wrote:
The state draws the line when defining "arms". Your state constitution defines the arms you may own, or collect, or carry.
Let's be clear. You have a fundamental right to own any arm you desire. Any arm. Whether your state protects that right is another matter altogether.
By remaining silent, SCOTUS is agreeing with the status quo. The status quo for the last 140 years is that the second amendment is unincorporated.
"The states are to respect those pre-existing rights as well, and the 14th Amendment states that in no uncertain terms."
That's correct. The 14th amendment states in no uncertain terms that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And the RKBA is in there somewhere, right? You're sure? 'Cause I don't see it. And neither does SCOTUS.
"Interesting. Source?"
"This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech: Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
'No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.'
This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away."
-- usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
"The core premise you and others express is that rights do not exist unless granted by the whole of government."
That's where you are wrong. The rights do indeed exist -- the core premise is "Are they protected? And if so, by who?"
"By your reasoning, the feds can't infringe on it but all 50 states can totally prohibit it if they like - do you seriously think that possibility would have been approved of by the Founding Fathers?"
I doubt they would have approved of that eventuality, but they certainly approved of the possibility.
The Founding Fathers were very big on states rights. They identified themselves by the state they were from. The thought that their state, or anyone's state, would totally prohibit all arms contrary to their self interest, I'm sure didn't exist.
Why single out the second amendment? All the states could have banned free speech, shut down the newspapers, established state religions. Some did.
All the states could have have ignored search warrants. Most did.
It was up to the people of each state to protect these rights in their state constitution. That was the beauty of the whole concept.
You have no quotes, no cites, nothing, to prove your silly notion that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to apply the U.S. Constitution to the states. Whatever that means, since the U.S. Constitution is very clear when either granting or restricting powers to the states of to the federal government.
Utter buffoon. Go back to DU.
“You are ignoring all the references to cannon ownership cited on this thread. Why is that?”
Because no one posting has made any connection between those references to cannon and the second amendment.
“The feds support unconstitutional State 'grabs' because they also support bans themselves. This is not a mystery, is it?”
And it is the law of the land and all the posting on internet sites in the world and tilting at windmills will not change this fact. Change is only done by electing the right people.
“Forget indignation over court and legislative attacks on the Constitution. Indignation serves no purpose. Elect politicians who will select judges who have actually read the Constitution. Now there is an idea.
Yep, an idea that is not working, as we see by the actions of the Bush administration.”
And your effective proposal is? Simply posting is little more than mental masturbation.
robertpaulsen wrote:
The 14th amendment states in no uncertain terms that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
And the RKBA is in there somewhere, right? You're sure? 'Cause I don't see it.
And neither does SCOTUS.
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.