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

To: MamaTexan

http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

“Of the amendments already adopted, (for which see the appendix,) the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.”

“The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all.”

“Each state is obliged, while it remains a member of the Union, to preserve the republican form of government in all its strength and purity. The people of each state, by the amended constitution, pledge themselves to each other for the sacred preservation of certain detailed principles, without which the republican form would be impure and weak.”

............................................

“The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”


85 posted on 04/21/2009 3:18:52 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: Wonder Warthog
A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all.”

Within the areas of enumerated jurisdiction.

There is nothing in Rawles' writings I can see that allows the federal government to incorporate the bill of rights into the States.

In fact, to allow the created that kind of authority over those who created it is directly against the principle of a Republican form of government.

This, however is Madison's Speech to House of Representatives Proposing Bill of Rights.

I will state an instance which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The general government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the state governments had in view. If there was reason for restraining the state governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the federal government.

James Madison said the Bill of Rights was to restrain the federal government. No where does he mention the ability of the federal government to 'incorporate' its Bill of Rights into those of the States.

-----

Don't get me wrong. The finding by the court was a victory for the RKBA.

On the other hand, the finding had nothing to do with abiding by the Constitution.

102 posted on 04/21/2009 7:26:24 PM PDT by MamaTexan (~ The People of the several States are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | 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