The Courts vs. the Constitution

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

[Sir Gawain]

No, but I admit I need to do more research in this area. I also think that Moore was neither violating the BOR nor the AL state Constitution, so the RKBA debate does not pertain to the Moore argument in my opinion.

[Badray]

"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."

I've never heard this interpretation expressed before. I like it. My question is whether you have some handy source for me to go to back me up when I carry this forward?

[tpaine]

Whats really incredible is that some 'conservatives' claim that CA has the power to prohibit guns.
Do you Sir?
58 -tpaine-


No, but I admit I need to do more research in this area.

I also think that Moore was neither violating the BOR nor the AL state Constitution, so the RKBA debate does not pertain to the Moore argument in my opinion.


I find it ~almost~ as incredible that some 'conservatives', -- using the same reasoning, could claim that CA has the power to prohibit Christian speech on the sidewalks.
Can you understand this principle, Sir?

[general_re]

I can't imagine how people get the impression that lawyers are cynical ;)

[tpaine]

That there is no RKBA's provision in the CA constitution is a well known fact, but a source for it?
Ya got me, other then citing the whole document.

Try searching some of the recent FR articles on the current battle to get the SCOTUS to hear the issue.
I seem to remember that the lawyers involved have a website with historical backgound posted.

[Sir Gawain]

I see your point. The important thing to remember, is to try and figure out the Founders' original intent, whether we end up agreeing with it or not. We can both agree on that. If only the courts did the same thing, instead of building on erroneous case law, we would be better off.

[tpaine]

Can we both agree that one of the founders original intents was religious freedom, everywhere in the United States?

[This is NOT Sheltons position, nor the position of the 'states rights' advocates on this thread.]

[Sir Gawain]

The problem is defining what the Founders meant by religious freedom. I tend to think it meant no established national church like they abandoned in England. I believe they were shooting for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Moore's monument comes nowhere near imposing a state religion telling you how to pray.

[pgyanke]

History lesson... the Constitution is a compact among the states. Each state is governed by its people and will be representative of that community and their standards--the framers were very supportive of local politics. Many states at the time had their own bill of rights in their state constitutions. Incorporating one into the national structure was a significant bone of contention. However, one was agreed to among them and the First Amendment was directed AT the federal level to prevent encroachment on their citizens in these basic liberties. The other amendments that don't mention a specific level of government were a compact of mutual understanding between the states that this is a basis of common rights. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments made it very clear that the only entity with restrictions on their powers/rights was the national government. Here is a tidbit from Federalist #85 by Alexander Hamilton:

Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent States are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence, also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a final act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties.

Translation: the states granted the power necessary to a functioning national government, established a Bill of Rights for their common areas of personal liberty and reserved to themselves all other powers no so conferred or deferred.

[Ethan_Allen]

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


They can if they can trick them into voting for something like this:



“Amend the Constitution of Virginia by adding in Article XI a section numbered 4 as follows:

“ARTICLE XI
“CONSERVATION

“Section 4. Right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

“The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, SUBJECT TO SUCH REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY PRESCRIBE BY GENERAL LAW."


http://www.sbe.state.va.us/Election/Ballot_Issues/Nov2000/proposed_constitutional_amendment2.htm


How's this? "The people shall be allowed to hunt and fish so long as they keep their guns in a "safe" place; storage under lock and key at the local police station shall be mandatory." (just for starters)

[Ethan_Allen]

tpaine

BTW, Would that be Thomas Paine?

I'm curious. Did you ever read the letter Thomas Paine wrote to George Washington on 30 July 1796? (If you are a Washington fan, you might not want to.)

[tpaine]

Can we both agree that one of the founders original intents was religious freedom, everywhere in the United States?
[This is NOT Sheltons position, nor the position of the 'states rights' advocates on this thread.]

The problem is defining what the Founders meant by religious freedom.

We dont have to guess. There was a great debate over the wording of the 1st. They compromised on it, as it's written.

I tend to think it meant no established national church like they abandoned in England.

Sure, that was part of it, granted.

I believe they were shooting for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

NO one here is advocating freedom from religion. Straw man.

Moore's monument comes nowhere near imposing a state religion telling you how to pray.

You are avoiding the true issue of this thread with that comment.

Can we both agree that one of the founders original intents was religious freedom, everywhere in the United States?

Sheltons position, and the position of the 'states rights' advocates on this thread, is that a state has the power to ignore the religious freedoms noted in the 1st amendment. -- Not to mention any or all of the others.

Do you agree with Lee Shelton's position?

[tpaine]

Translation: the states granted the power necessary to a functioning national government, established a Bill of Rights for their common areas of personal liberty and reserved to themselves all other powers no so conferred or deferred.
69 -pgy-


Flawed translation:
The ~people~ of the United States granted the power necessary to a functioning national government, established a Bill of Rights for their common areas of personal liberty and reserved to themselves all other powers not so conferred or deferred.

States have no 'rights' or powers except those granted them by the people.
Small difference in wording. HUGE difference in concepts.

[tpaine]

Translation: the states granted the power necessary to a functioning national government, established a Bill of Rights for their common areas of personal liberty and reserved to themselves all other powers no so conferred or deferred.
69 -pgy-


Flawed translation above.

True concept:

The ~people~ of the United States granted the power necessary to a functioning national government, established a Bill of Rights for their common areas of personal liberty and reserved to themselves all other powers not so conferred or deferred.

States have no 'rights' or powers except those granted them by the people.
Small difference in wording. HUGE difference in concepts.

[tpaine]

I'm sure I did, at one point or another.
But I'm also sure you want to refresh my memory, in any case....

[Sir Gawain]

I would tend to agree with you, but #10 seems to state the opposite.

[Ethan_Allen]

"These incrimental steps of the Judiciary to wipe out all trace of our origin..."


Actually, it may be that they are trying to say our roots are with Noah and not Moses and the Commandments:



http://www.noahide.com/index2.htm (Congress and Presidents have signed on; Supremes are hearing a brief on decapitation as a mode of punishment http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html , in deference to the Jews. My guess is that the Supremes will refuse to take up the case of the Ten Commandments, and the rest of it will be slipped in as the law of the land. Slick, no? Separation of church and state only when the church to be separated is Christianity http://www.noahide.com/xmas.htm .)

The Ark and the Ten Commandments are probably in heaven. (See David Chilton's on-line book THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE). Christians are called to a higher law:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat022.html#35:
verses 35-40; they supercede the Ten Commandments, and fall into place with the New Covenant, to 'write my laws in your hearts and minds' http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Hbr/8/8.html :

Gal 5:14 For ALL THE LAW IS FULFILLED IN ONE WORD, [even] in this; THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF.
and this: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Gal/5/14.html


1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

1Jo 2:7 Brethren, I WRITE NO NEW COMMANDMENT UNTO YOU, BUT AN OLD COMMANDMENT WHICH YE HAD FROM THE BEGINNING. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

1Jo 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

1Jo 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and HATETH HIS BROTHER, is in darkness even until now.

1Jo 2:10 He that LOVETH HIS BROTHER abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

1Jo 2:11 But HE THAT HATETH HIS BROTHER IS IN DARKNESS, AND WALKETH IN DARKNESS, AND KNOWETH NOT WHITHER HE GOETH, BECAUSE THAT DARKNESS HATH BLINDED HIS EYES. ]
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Jo/1Jo002.html#7




Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

Mar 12:31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Mar/12/31.html

[pgyanke]

Not a correct correction. You're playing word games poorly.

Before the Federal Constitution was even considered, the 13 colonies had their own constitutions. These states were already granted the power of representation by the people. The STATES (through their granted powers, yes) resolved their differences in joining under a national government. This was a governmental function conferred on the state by the people. The PEOPLE's first chance to hack off on the new Constitution was when it was put to the states for a vote... long after it had been finalized by the states' representatives.

[Ethan_Allen]

you've got mail - share it or not - your choice

[inquest]

I'm arguing for enforcing our BOR's

...by the federal government. I'm arguing that it'd be wiser for states to be limited at the state level. So yes, that fully justifies my observation: Knowing how federal powers can be abused, I want to keep them limited. You obviously don't.