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

To: mad_as_he$$; Czar; jedward; processing please hold; Borax Queen
I think it would go the other way. The Constitution would ONLY apply to Federal Zones and NOT to the rest of us....someday one of them will bring this to the Court. It is only a matter of time before someone challenges Federal authority using this theory.

Now.......that is more than interesting (and more than frightening), indeed!

137 posted on 02/04/2008 5:43:57 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]


Indeed, if rejected language is any clue as to the meaning of that which was accepted, perhaps the most telling example was the Framers’ rejection of the following proposed amendment:
“That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. . . .” FIRST SENATE JOURNAL 126.

This proposal stated, in unmistakably direct and concise fashion, exactly that meaning which Petitioners would divine in the Second Amendment through tortured linguistics, fanciful explanations, and “hidden history.” And it was rejected by the Framers. “[H]istory does not warrant concluding that it necessarily follows from the pairing of the concepts that a person has a right to bear arms solely in his function as a member of the militia.” Robert Sprecher, The Lost Amendment, 51 AM. BAR ASS’N J. 554, 557 (1965).11


138 posted on 02/04/2008 5:53:20 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | 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