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

To: Publius Valerius
You ignore the clear words of Article VI, that "notwithstanding" their own constitutions or laws, States must support the US Constitution [and its Amendments] as the supreme Law of the Land.

--- nothing in Article VI contradicts what I've said. If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, and up until 1868, nothing indicated that it did, a state could freely enact laws that infringed on the ownership of firearms without being in conflict with the US Constitution. No problem.

Why do you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?
Why is this "no problem"? - It's sure a problem to Californians.

111 posted on 06/07/2005 10:01:30 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: P_A_I

Why do I want states to have the power to prohibit guns? Because they DO! Federalism allows states to make decisions we don't agree with. Not everything is a right. It is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that leads the Supreme Court to make decisions like Brown and Roe and Griswold and the VMI case--because the notion that everything is a right.

If Californians don't like it, they can vote at the ballot box or they can vote with their feet. I own a lot of guns, and you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands--but at the same time, I wouldn't live in California if it was the last place on Earth.

The beauty of Our Federalism is that the federal government can't just stomp all over the states when it feels like. Individual states are free to make laws that not everyone agrees with. If Alabama wants to ban dildoes (it does), great. Fine. There's no "right" to buy one. If Virginia wants to ban unmarried co-habitation (it did until this year), fine. If Vermont wants to allow same-sex marriages, also fine. We've got 50 great states (well, OK, 35 great states and 15 ok ones) and I'm sure that you can find one that you like.

Once you start allowing the federal government to stomp all over the states, there is no principled place to draw the line. You seemed to imply earlier that you thought Brown was wrongly decided--why? If you think the federal government can command the states, why was Brown wrong?


112 posted on 06/07/2005 10:10:07 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

To: P_A_I; Publius Valerius
P_A_I, please forgive me if i missed it in skimming your posts, but please clarify the following:

Do you disagree with publius valerius that the bill of rights were not originally mean to apply to the states (later being erroneously made applicable peacemeal to the states by activist courts)?

146 posted on 06/07/2005 2:57:30 PM PDT by tame (Are you willing to do for the truth what leftists are willing to do for a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

To: P_A_I; Publius Valerius; All

to clarify my question at post 146, i am asking about those specific original bill of rights that were apparently directed toward congress.


147 posted on 06/07/2005 3:01:58 PM PDT by tame (Are you willing to do for the truth what leftists are willing to do for a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | 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