The Courts vs. the Constitution

ToogoodReports.com ^ | 08/28/2003 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[sheltonmac]

The Bill of Rights was written specifically to try to prevent what is taking place today. The founders recognized the inherent evils of a strong, centralized government, and sought to spare us the pains they had to endure.

[ClearCase_guy]

world = word

[xzins]

Have you been defending the statement "the bill of rights are not binding on the states?"

If not, then I've misunderstood you. My apologies.

[xzins]

I agree with that, but the phrase "the bill of rights are not binding on the states" doesn't say that, in my mind.

The state of Ohio cannot tell me I no longer have a right to "keep and bear arms."

[sheltonmac]

The state of Ohio cannot tell me I no longer have a right to "keep and bear arms."

Ohio's state Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, so if the state legislature tried to ban guns their action would be unconstitutional. However, that is for the state to decide, and the citizens of Ohio would have to take a stand in opposition to the legislature's trampling of their rights. The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from banning guns, which is why virtually every federal gun law on the books is unconstitutional.

[xzins]

Shelton, it goes beyond what the Ohio constitution says in the instance of the 2nd Amendment.

See #19

[djf]

Correct. The preamble to the Bill of Rights specifically states they are included as limitations and restrictions on the new government.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution

[inquest]

What do you think they mean by the word "state" above?

Your method of constitutional interpretation varies only slightly from that of the Left. They also like to pick out isolated words (like "militia") and draw all kinds of fancy conclusions from them, instead of looking at the actual sentences. The only difference is which words you like to pick out.

In any case, the purpose of the word "state" in the 2nd amendment is to establish that states, in order to be able to maintain effective militias, must not be in any way interfered with by federal gun-control laws.

[xzins]

Interpreting the actual words is hardly liberal. They ignore the words.

The point of the discussion is whether or not the bill of rights applies to the states or only to the Fed.

I do NOT believe that the Bill of Rights was ever intended to be other than part of the constitution, and that it enshrined God-given rights for citizens regardless of what their states might decide.

One of those is the right to keep and bear arms. No one can take it away. Not any state. Not any Fed.

[tpaine]

xzins:
The state of Ohio cannot tell me I no longer have a right to "keep and bear arms."


Ohio's state Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, so if the state legislature tried to ban guns their action would be unconstitutional. However, that is for the state to decide, and the citizens of Ohio would have to take a stand in opposition to the legislature's trampling of their rights. The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from banning guns, which is why virtually every federal gun law on the books is unconstitutional.
25 -smac-



The state of California cannot tell me I no longer have a right to "keep and bear arms."

Californias state Constitution does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, so if the state legislature tried to ban guns their action would be constitutional?

Mac, this is a strange position for a conservative to take.

In fact, Lee's position that our BOR's does not apply to states ignores the clear words of the 14th, saying that states cannot deprive us of our rights to life, liberty, & property, [guns], -- without due process.
Outright prohibitions on socalled 'assault weapons' are not due process.

[tpaine]

"The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from banning guns --"
25 -smac-


Djf, do you agree that states can violate our 2nd amendent?

[tpaine]

"The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from banning guns --"
25 -smac-


Inquest, do you agree that states can violate our 2nd amendent?

[HurkinMcGurkin]

U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from banning guns,

Horse crap. The second mentions nothing about any specific level of government.

[sheltonmac]

Duly elected representatives in a state legislature passing a law would fit the definition of "due process." Of course, that doesn't mean that every law passed--even a legal, constitutional one--is right. I would hope that any state government trying to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms would be opposed by every armed citizen in that state. My point is that it is much easier to deal with an oppressive state government than it is to cope with an oppressive national government. If worse came to worst, I can always move to another state. But if the federal government takes control over every state, there is no escape.

[djf]

The states can't do anything anymore. They have been effectively dissolved, and exist in name only. The individual states were seen as the last and greatest bastion of the liberties of the people. Go read the federalists, you will see that over and over, where the BOR is discussed, they are referred to an anachronism, unneeded because the federal government would never have the authority or jurisdiction to violate any of them. The ultimate defenders of the liberties was seen as the States, even Hamilton, almost a monarchist, said the states would never tolerate the federal government demeaning the civil liberties of the people.

As to whether I agree or disagree, it matters little. The founders were extraordinarily literate men, many of whom spoke and composed in multiple languages, the meaning of what they wrote is clear to me.

[tpaine]

sheltonmac:
"U.S. Constitution only prohibits the federal government from banning guns,"



Horse crap. The second mentions nothing about any specific level of government.
33 -HMcG-


Exactly. -- In their misplaced zeal to establish that 1st amendment freedoms [religion/speech/press/assembly/petiton], -- can be violated by states, the fundamentalists must insist that none of them apply.. Even the 2nd.

Lee Shelton has been spreading this 'big lie' type agit-prop about our BOR's for some time now. I can't understand his agenda.
Why does he WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights?

[Pietro]

I think this post is drifting in the wrong direction. My understanding of the main issue is whether or not the judiciary can rule this display unconstitutional in as much as:

1) No law was passed by any legislature (ie Congress)

2) The display does not "establish" any religion

There are tremendous ramifications if this position wins out.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

The individual states were seen as the last and greatest bastion of the liberties of the people.

Interesting statement. Many posters who enter into "state's rights" discussions seem to take the position that the founding fathers intended States to be the last and greatest bastion for the violation of the liberties of the people. If one believes that States can establish/promote a religion, limit "speech" or ban guns, then one fits the description of the mindset I explained above.

The ultimate defenders of the liberties was seen as the States, even Hamilton, almost a monarchist, said the states would never tolerate the federal government demeaning the civil liberties of the people.

Unless the "demeaning" was acceptable in "society" at the time. It seems Hamilton, and most of the other FFs, had little problem with the Feds or the States demeaning women and minorities.

[pgyanke]

I enjoyed the article immensely but many of the posts are scary. Where are we as a nation when we can't even be allowed to read what is before our own eyes without someone telling us what we see isn't really what we see?

The Bill of Rights apply as they are written. The Federalist Papers say so. They are a blanket declaration of our common rights as citizens except where noted. One noteable exception in the BOR is specifically stating that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What that says in essence is the National level of government has no jurisdiction in this area. Period. The states, though, through the Tenth Amendment and the power of their citizens retained this right. Many of the colonies at the time of the signing of the Constitution had religious tests for their leaders and these were not unconstitutional. The founders reasoned that the marketplace would protect the rights of the citizens. If particular states set up particular mores, including religious, the citizenry was not prohibited from free transit between the states. The marketplace would account for imbalances. Eventually, all those who refused to live in a Christian society would find a home together and have their own mores and values.

The current fight is one of state sovereignty vs an over-reaching Federal government. It is fundamental to our culture and must be won to secure our future according to our founding. Losing this fight means losing America as it was founded to be.

Make no mistake, it is the states who created the central government for the common defense, et al. The central government, therefore, does not have the authority then to remove the prerogatives of the state.

[tpaine]

Californias state Constitution does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, so if the state legislature tried to ban guns their action would be constitutional?

Mac, this is a strange position for a conservative to take. In fact, Lee's position that our BOR's does not apply to states ignores the clear words of the 14th, saying that states cannot deprive us of our rights to life, liberty, & property, [guns], -- without due process.
Outright prohibitions on socalled 'assault weapons' are not due process.

Duly elected representatives in a state legislature passing a law would fit the definition of "due process." Of course, that doesn't mean that every law passed--even a legal, constitutional one--is right.

Nope, under the 14th, they must show a compelling reason to criminalize 'assault weapons'. Fiat bans are not due process.

I would hope that any state government trying to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms would be opposed by every armed citizen in that state.

Yet you advocate Lee Sheltons view that states should have the power to so prohibit. Odd.

My point is that it is much easier to deal with an oppressive state government than it is to cope with an oppressive national government.

Our constitution forbids such oppression from all, - fed/state/local. --- Why not support it?

If worse came to worst, I can always move to another state. But if the federal government takes control over every state, there is no escape.

True enough. - I firmly support the free state project. Do you?