Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
One could not object to the forced recognition of gay “marriage” by all states should one legalize it under such a broad useage of Fourteenth amendment powers.
The tenth amendment applies to the police powers of the states which include gun law. The Founders did not write it. Congress wrote it but they in no way meant for the BofR to apply to states as Marshall clearly affirmed in his masterful ruling on the issue.
Obviously, the “privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States” is not clearly defined nor a matter of universal agreement. Some believe they include the right to same sex marriage, others that it means the right to free health care, another bunch believe it means if you are born here, though child of an illegal, you are a citizen. There are quite a few controversies here.
My interpretation is rather simple. It means that citizens of the US cannot be denied things which other citizens can have or do for some arbitrary reason. If I go to or live in one state my rights are identical with those who live in that state. It was created so that a Freedman in any state could not be denied the rights white citizens had as a matter of course in that state.
As much as it gags me to agree with her, she is correct. The only part of the Constituion that opperates on the Stataes are the explicet prohibitions.
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.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States
Just because Rawle said the second could be appealed to as a restraint on the States, the fact that it has to BE appealed to means it isn't a given.
Of course, that was way back when everyone understood that the right to self defense was a natural one.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
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.