Skip to comments.
The Courts vs. the Constitution
ToogoodReports.com ^
| 08/28/2003
| Lee R. Shelton IV
Posted on 08/28/2003 5:14:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-128 next last
To: djf
You agree, and it does matter.
Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights?
41
posted on
08/28/2003 10:11:18 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: tpaine
It's not possible for states to "violate" that which doesn't apply to them in the first place.
42
posted on
08/28/2003 10:13:42 AM PDT
by
inquest
(We are NOT the world)
To: HurkinMcGurkin
It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national government.
Hamilton, Federalist 28.
There are many more examples
43
posted on
08/28/2003 10:19:06 AM PDT
by
djf
To: pgyanke
the BOR is specifically stating that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. -pgy-
Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights to religion/speech/press/assembly/petition?
How about the 2nd? Can states violate that?
44
posted on
08/28/2003 10:19:52 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: inquest
"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?
32 tpaine
It's not possible for states to "violate" that which doesn't apply to them in the first place.
-inquest-
Word games. -- You agree that our RKBA's can be violated by states.
Be ashamed.
45
posted on
08/28/2003 10:25:20 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: tpaine
Do I have to respond to someone who obviously didn't read what I wrote before? What's the likelyhood you'll read it this time? If you want your answer, read the post you responded to one more time and try again.
46
posted on
08/28/2003 10:28:46 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(Christianity, if false, is unimportant and, if true, of infinite importance. - C.S. Lewis)
To: pgyanke
My post was clear enough.
You contend that 1st amendment rights can be violated by states. This is not true.
Obviously, you do not have to respond.
47
posted on
08/28/2003 10:40:06 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: tpaine
Word games. -- You agree that our RKBA's can be violated by states.Never once said that. Our rights exist regardless of what the Constitution says. This whole silly little dispute simply has to do with the powers of the federal government, not with the question of whether rights are inviolable. Knowing how federal powers can be abused, I want to keep them limited. You obviously don't. Such is life.
48
posted on
08/28/2003 10:46:12 AM PDT
by
inquest
(We are NOT the world)
To: tpaine
*Sigh*
My post clearly said that the Bill of Rights apply to all citizens and all levels of government EXCEPT where noted. The Founding Fathers were not afraid of religion, just a national one. They clearly said that the Congress (the law-writing body of our national government) has no jurisdiction when it comes to religion and backed up their justification in their writings and speakings.
Since the other amendments speak strictly to rights of the people and states, they apply as they are written.
I was wrong... people do need to have words written in plain English explained to them.
49
posted on
08/28/2003 10:47:46 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(Christianity, if false, is unimportant and, if true, of infinite importance. - C.S. Lewis)
To: sheltonmac
Michael Medved, the radio talk show host dubbed America's "Cultural Crusader," has accused Moore of flaunting the rule of law and taking a position that could lead to anarchy. Let me see, a judge protests peacefuly, wants to discuss the truth further through his protest, yet we are shutting him up and calling him leading to anarchy?????
This is over the top.
To: sheltonmac
51
posted on
08/28/2003 10:50:35 AM PDT
by
Sir Gawain
(When does the next Crusade start?)
To: pgyanke
Obviously, you've never read the other rights enumerated in the first amendment.
Or, -- is there some penumbra you see that separates them from the 'Congress shall make no law' line?
52
posted on
08/28/2003 10:55:27 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: tpaine
If the 2nd Amendment automatically applied to the states, it seems like any state that had an RKBA amendment would simply be redundancy. Why do states have RKBA amendments if they're covered under the BOR already?
53
posted on
08/28/2003 10:58:20 AM PDT
by
Sir Gawain
(When does the next Crusade start?)
To: tpaine
"Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights?"
I suspect its because the cause of the moment is furthered by a draconian interpretation. If California passed a law prohibiting Christians from speaking on city sidewalks, you'd be hearing a different story. Just a guess.
54
posted on
08/28/2003 10:58:39 AM PDT
by
atlaw
To: JohnGalt
BUMP
55
posted on
08/28/2003 11:08:25 AM PDT
by
GrandMoM
("What is impossible with men is possible with GOD -Luke 18:27)
To: inquest
Word games. -- You agree that our RKBA's can be violated by states.
Never once said that.
Yep, and thats another of your play on words, -- because you support Sheltons position, which has that view.
Our rights exist regardless of what the Constitution says.
Of course they do. This is not the issue.
This whole silly little dispute simply has to do with the powers of the federal government, not with the question of whether rights are inviolable.
The 'states rights dispute' is not silly. You deny the basic principles of individual freedoms by saying states have the power to ignore them.
Knowing how federal powers can be abused, I want to keep them limited. You obviously don't.
Idiotic statement, I'm arguing for enforcing our BOR's, -- you want to limit them..
Such is life, indeed.
56
posted on
08/28/2003 11:12:58 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: ClearCase_guy; xzins
The fact of the matter is every state, with Virginia being the first, ALREADY each had their own "bill of rights" built into their state constitutions. The federal constitution was modeled on the protections of rights already in various state constitutions. The founders were not concerned with their own states becoming tyrannies, as much as they were of a central federal government becoming tyrannous.
A state government could be controlled by its citizens, whereas a large central federal government, with a huge standing military and law enforcement apparatus is more to be feared.
The current kind of government which the U.S. Government is, is exactly what the founders sought mightily to avoid.
To: Sir Gawain
If the 2nd Amendment automatically applied to the states, it seems like any state that had an RKBA amendment would simply be redundancy. Why do states have RKBA amendments if they're covered under the BOR already?
53 -Sir G-
Some states wrote their constitutions before our U.S. Constitution was ratified.
-- As we can see, in 1848, CA wrote their constitution in the assumption that there was no need to enumerate such an obvious right.
'They' were wrong because we now have a federal government violating our RKBA's, and thus a USSC thats afraid to slap down CA's obvious violation of the 2nd.
Go figure.
Whats really incredible is that some 'conservatives' claim that CA has the power to prohibit guns.
Do you Sir?
58
posted on
08/28/2003 11:29:45 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: atlaw
tpaine:
"Why do you WANT states to have the power to violate our individual rights?"
I suspect its because the cause of the moment is furthered by a draconian interpretation. If California passed a law prohibiting Christians from speaking on city sidewalks, you'd be hearing a different story. Just a guess.
54 -atlaw-
Great ironic point.
I suspect there would be blood on those sidewalks, in short order.
59
posted on
08/28/2003 11:33:44 AM PDT
by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
To: Sir Gawain
If the 2nd Amendment automatically applied to the states, it seems like any state that had an RKBA amendment would simply be redundancy. Why do states have RKBA amendments if they're covered under the BOR already? Many State constitutions contain language very similar to that of the U.S. Constitution and are thus redundant. Many contain language even more explicit concerning establishment or promotion of religion. In short, most constitutions of States which were not the original 13 colonies were modeled after the U.S. Constitution.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-128 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson