Posted on 03/22/2007 11:28:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I don't think you and I disagree on these issues. I'm assuming we both think that central governmental authority should mostly be limited to the preservation of our liberty (the "securing of those rights). Yes, that includes national defense and neutralizing Islamic terror.
I'd like you to convince me that Rudy doesn't disagree either, that he really understands and cares about our founding ideals, but convince me in some other way than trying to justify his statements in this speech. Because I think those 2 sentences of his were either boneheaded or wrong headed.
I don't think we had a president in nearly 100 years who believed in our founding ideals, except for Ronald Reagan, so if Rudy understands them, that makes him a major exception.
You're making authority sound benevolent, which I don't think is it's nature. Necessary in some ways? Yes. Beneficial if limited? Yes. But always something to be feared and kept under restraint.
Again, I doubt we are in disagreement on this.
If you want to find someone to argue with then go find someone else.
The fact is, the Federal Constitution IS the supreme law of the land.
When the states ratified it, they accepted that precept.
Don't let THAT little fact get in your way.
I'm a big supporter of the 10th Amendment, that does not change the fact that what is in the Federal Document takes precedence of state constitutions when those constitutions are at odds with the Federal one.
If that bothers you so much then go talk to someone on the Supreme court or push your congressman and senators to hold a CONCON and try to get it changed.
Oh now...that gives your position away completely.
"Oh now...that gives your position away completely."
Yeah I'm sure it does louie
I said that the BOR's restrictions where restrictions on the Federal Government, and not on the State governments.
You say that I'm wrong, and if I don't agree with the notion that Constitutional restrictions on the Federal government regarding the 2nd extend to the States, I should take it up with Supreme Court...so I did, and here's what they said:
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,
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.