The presence or absence of a Bill of Rights is not the reason our nation has succeeded and was fairly regularly ignored except when certain causes provoked court cases. Great Britain does not have a BoR and one could hardly argue that it has had less freedom than the US since the ratification.
California until very recently was also no less free than the rest of the nation even w/o a BoR. And its becoming less free is with the federal Constitution in effect.
States are not free to ignore the Constitution. Rhetorical nonsense is not productive.
What was ratified as the BoR was they UNDERSTANDING by the States that it did NOT apply to the States. That UNDERSTANDING was shown to be CORRECT by Marshall's Court.
Madison implimented the UNDERSTANDING the Federalists reached during the ratification process. He argued against it prior to that joining Hamilton. Hamilton also did not fight against the ultimate amendment.
Perhaps you can show everyone where I said something so stupid as that states should IGNORE the BoR? Or any aspect of the Constitution. That was not even a good CHEAP SHOT.
The presence or absence of a Bill of Rights is not the reason our nation has succeeded and was fairly regularly ignored except when certain causes provoked court cases.
There you go, accepting the fact that our rights have been "fairly regularly ignored".
Great Britain does not have a BoR and one could hardly argue that it has had less freedom than the US since the ratification.
Are you free to own a handgun in Great Britain?
California until very recently was also no less free than the rest of the nation even w/o a BoR.
You are accepting CA's 'recent' gun grabs?
And its becoming less free is with the federal Constitution in effect.
The feds are not enforcing the 2nd, anywhere, -- much less in CA.
States are not free to ignore the Constitution. Rhetorical nonsense is not productive.
In effect you accept that they do ignore the 2nd, as per your words just above.
What was ratified as the BoR was they UNDERSTANDING by the States that it did NOT apply to the States.
Article VI says otherwise.
That UNDERSTANDING was shown to be CORRECT by Marshall's Court.
Marshalls 'barron opinion' has always been highly disputed, and was nullified by the 14th.
Madison implimented the UNDERSTANDING the Federalists reached during the ratification process. He argued against it prior to that joining Hamilton. Hamilton also did not fight against the ultimate amendment. Perhaps you can show everyone where I said something so stupid as that states should IGNORE the BoR? Or any aspect of the Constitution. That was not even a good CHEAP SHOT.
I asked you that question.. In effect, you've answered.. - Thanks.