Posted on 01/15/2006 8:59:46 AM PST by Dog Gone
But it was not written as such. Words have meaning.
Shall not be infringed has a meaning and no qualifier. Congress shall pass no law is a qualifier. Capice?
When you start playing games with the meaning of words, you get a court that finds that the Commerce Clause gives the feds power to regulate activities that involved neither commerce nor interstate movement. In other words, there is no limit to federal power, unless SCOTUS decides they approve of a state's action, in which case they flip-flop on a decision they made just a few months earlier - a flip from Raich to Gonzelez - leading to where the Constitution has no meaning whatsoever except what a majority of five Supreme Court justices decide it means.
I do realize that what you say is historically accurate - I have never questioned that. I instead challenge the notion that intent trumps what has been written, because it is the problem we have today - it is the endgame of what happens when you rationalize away the meaning of words and replace them with intent - the intent trumps the meaning of the words, and we enter a state of rule by men, not rule by laws.
States have majorities that enslave minorities.
Get a clue.
" "The defendant's counsel rely, principally, on the 5th article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, which contains this provision: "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon state courts proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I do not consider it material whether this provision be considered as extending to the state tribunals or not; the principle is a sound and fundamental one of the common law, that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence. I am, however, inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals in the United States, whether constituted by the Congress of the United States, or the states individually. The provision is general in its nature, and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the constitution declares, that that constitution shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the constitution of the United States to every article which is not confined, by the subject matter, to the national government, and is equally applicable to the states. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, for the same offence." CJ Spencer 1820
""The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States, in their act of ratification, recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature." Judge Lumpkin
Evidently these Chief Justices of their respective states didn't get your memo.
Sure, it happened every time a law was passed by the legislature. Unless it was proscribed by the state constitution.
In Virginia the constitution had no guarantee of the right to own arms. One had to be in the militia.
Members of certain races were not allowed in the militia- whether they were free or not.
Wrong? Sure. But constitutional. Constitutions are not perfect they are made by men.
'xactly.
They [We the people] "ceded" their rights to their states before the Constitution- before the Articles of Confederation.
Ding ding -- we have a winner for unsubstantiated declaration of the day.. Yesterdays winner, mojave, will transfer the tinfoil crown to mrsmith at 6pm Pacific.
Boy, you are a weasel, aren't you?
To Lumpkin, a ban on concealed weapons was OK if open carry of weapons was allowed.
Do you think the Brady types would go for national open carry?
More dishonesty from you, Mojave. I'd take unlimited open carry any day of the week.
Now you're simply lying. When you start to lie, you lose.
"I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States."
You left that out.
Members of certain races were not allowed in the militia- whether they were free or not.
You simply prove my point here Mr Smith. Why would any rational man or woman cede anything to states that did such things?
The answer is clear, they wouldn't and they didn't. And when they finally realized that they had been defrauded by Marshall they rectified it.
He's been a looser for years now.
preceding
I left nothing out pal. I linked to the holding. Your side is the side that left out all the cases that dispute the notion that the people willingly ceded their rights to the state. And there are many more. But the kicker is that once the people found out they had been defrauded by the likes of Marshall and his ilk, they righted that ship quick thanks to folks like Justice Lumpkin and Justice Spencer who allowed the sunlight to shine on the statists.
"We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence..." --Hawkins H. Nunn vs. The State of Georgia.
After hundreds of thousands had died the federal Constitution was amended.
Yep. And he'll leave it out again the next time he trots it out.
And that was contingent on the fact that open carry was still allowed.
Try another cherry-pick, weasel-boy.
Will we ever learn?
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.