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

To: Pollster1
The strongest guarantee in the Bill of Rights covers the Second Amendment: “shall not be infringed”. That isn’t just a restriction at the federal level, “Congress shall make no law”, it’s an absolute. This new rule has no legitimacy.

Let's think about this carefully. It says, "Congress shall make no law . . ." The fact that it doesn't say, "No State shall make a law . . ." means it's not unconstitutional for Mass. to go all nanny-Nazi over guns. Crazy, but not unconstitutional. The powers of the Federal government are "few and defined" for a reason: to allow States to compete against each other, improve on each other, copy each other, or move in the opposite direction to attract all the best settlers.

The legal fashion that all States must duplicate the Federal Bill of Rights when governing their respective citizens is in itself an example of unconstitutional over-reach by the Feds. Hard cases (such as slavery) have resulted in many bad laws indeed.

That's why the Marxists have always loved this false doctrine: With particular intensity since the late 19th century, they have focused on controlling the Federal culture, adding all sorts of unconstitutional and onerous powers to it—so that, whoever controls the Federal government can obliterate the States' interpretation of their own laws. That way, uniformity, Kaiser-like, can be enforced on individual citizens from the top.

It may be that only civil chaos resulting from the corruption and incompetence of Federal rule will be the force powerful enough to unwind Federal overreach. Unfortunately, I think that is what will occur, as the more prosperous and better-led states or alliances of states exert increasing independence—to the point where the Detroit-like central government is unable to contain them. It's unfortunate because it will be attended by warfare.

35 posted on 08/01/2014 5:48:41 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: SamuraiScot
"Congress shall make no law . . ."

That wording is not in the Second Amendment. Here is what it says:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

38 posted on 08/01/2014 6:12:06 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: SamuraiScot
Let's think about this carefully. It says, "Congress shall make no law . . ." The fact that it doesn't say, "No State shall make a law . . ." means it's not unconstitutional for Mass. to go all nanny-Nazi over guns. Crazy, but not unconstitutional. The powers of the Federal government are "few and defined" for a reason: to allow States to compete against each other, improve on each other, copy each other, or move in the opposite direction to attract all the best settlers.

I read this differently. The "Congress shall make no law . . ." in the First Amendment rather than, "shall not be infringed . . ." as in the Second Amendment means it was not explicitly unconstitutional for Mass. to go all nanny-Nazi over free speech and over freedom of the press when the Bill of Rights passed. It's only the Second Amendment that was approved with the absolute blanket protection of "shall not be infringed" to prevent any level of government from interfering with the fundamental, God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is only the Second Amendment that was written explicitly so that it was already incorporated when written.

47 posted on 08/02/2014 3:30:31 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | 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