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

To: C. Edmund Wright

Oh, I see...well sometimes it is the little things that can blow another controversy to Kingdom come!

On this thread I’m seeing arguments about alienable rights, inalienable rights, and state’s powers.

I personally want to see the Bill of Rights made inviolate. If this seemingly innocuous dispute in North Caroline ends up smashing every piece of gun control legislation in the country including Colorado, that would be great!


67 posted on 04/04/2013 6:45:50 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: SatinDoll
I personally want to see the Bill of Rights made inviolate. If this seemingly innocuous dispute in North Caroline ends up smashing every piece of gun control legislation in the country including Colorado, that would be great!

This case cannot do what you're suggesting; it is impossible.
Why?

Because the question of "can a State establish a religion?" cannot be answered by the USSC in a way to make the Bill of Rights stronger (to affirm the 9th and 10th Amendments would be death for the US Supreme Court*). To answer 'yes' is to destroy the 9th and 10th Amendments further, and to answer 'no' is to allow the 14th Amendment to give god-like powers to the Supreme Court (which they've already usurped a lot) over the Constitution.

To use 'incorporation' to shut this down is to [once again] affirm that the Constitution is whatever the US Supreme Court says it is -- that it, to put them in authority over it -- essentially allowing them to alter the text before applying it. [The 1st Amendment restricts "congress" and the number of states which have a "congress" is very low; 'legislatures' on the other hand...]

So in that sense, this is just a losing proposition.

* In the sense that those in power tend to view any reduction in their power as a form of death. To affirm the 9/10 Amendment[s] would be to weaken the court's golden goose** Roe v. Wade, where they essentially said to the States "F--- You, we can destroy your laws at will."
** Actually I think that's probably their "silver goose" now that Affordable Care Act lets them rewrite the law virtually at-will.
(*** Their 'bronze [copper?] goose' would be Wickard v. Filburn, which really ultimately set the stage for "everything is a federal matter" mentality.)

68 posted on 04/04/2013 9:35:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll

To find a discussion more overtly opposed to Natural Rights and the primary freedoms of men, one would have to either visit Democratic Underground or Cuba. What a strange time we live in.


74 posted on 04/05/2013 3:25:58 PM PDT by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | 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