Posted on 12/06/2015 11:38:27 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“But quickly, the 10 strictly prohibits the States from infringing any rights stated as declaratory and restrictive in the BOR.”
Um, no. The 10th forbids the federal from excersizing all powers not delegated to it AND it reserves those powers to the States or the people.
There are two bodies of powers involved here. Those delegated to the federal, which are few and specific, and a set that is not delegated, which is unbounded. As Marshall wrote in Marbury: the delegation of certain Powers has an exclusionary sense to all potential powers than those delegated, or else the delegation of those Powers is form without function.
To that I eagerly add that the enumeration of circumstantial exceptions to the doctrine of delegated powers, as is actually found in the Constitution for places like DC or a Territory, likewise demonstrates that those must be the only exceptions: because if other unwritten exceptions are to be had then the enumeration of any serve no purpose.
Moreover, the BOR should only apply the the federal as well. “Incorporation” is not a good legal theory. But that doesn’t mean that the Constitution says nothing to limit State abuses.
It is Article 4:Section 2:Clause 1 which required the several States to respect the P&I that they were already honoring when the Constitution was ratified. For a brief discussion of what these are I could point you to Corfield v Coryell ... but I would also point out that the great achievement of English Common Law over other forms of laws was that -— unlike say Roman law where whatever was not permitted was considered illegal -— aside from that which was actually forbidden (say homosexual acts, theft, or perjury) everything else was lawful. So to say, as A4:S2:C1 does, to the States they they should continue to respect the Privileges and Immunities common among all when they ratified the Constitution is then a real limit of what they can do in the way of abuses of their powers.
Honestly, he is an idiot. They fly, drive, work, they have blended into our country. They could be our neighbors, co-workers, we have no idea who they are.
Again, this is not about guns, this is about Islam hating all other religions.
That son of a mailman....needs to shut up.
civil rights are subject to due process.
the no fly list has no due process. just “a decider”.
Kasich is openly advocating dictatorship with this.
Um, the 10th forbids the States from trampling on the BOR
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -
The BOR are declatory and restrictive, period.
Kasich is a reasonable democrat.
Kasich is still around and running his mouth? Good grief! Go away, loser.
No. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. We cannot deny an American the God-given individual right to keep and bear arms just because they have a funny name or landed on a list, without ever being convicted of a crime.
Incorrect.
This is made clear by the preamble to the BoR which states:
“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 insure the beneficient ends of its institution.”
Please note that all references to what is being limited, “its” when referencing the Constitution or the Government it established are singular, not plural as should be the case if it was referring to the federal AND State charters and governments. Moreover, the “Conventions of a number of the States” here referenced were not instruments whereby ANY State charter was ratified, only the federal Constitution, so these words make it clear that the BoR applies to it (the federal) ... not them (the States).
Moreover, the very words of the 10th Amendment are clearly against you, stating that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution only grants a very few powers to the federal, and forbids a very few powers to the States so effectively the powers reserved to them are without limit ... subject to their own charters and A4:S2:C1 (as I’ve previously pointed out) of course.
If there are any powers unincorporated into any State charter that may be lawful these remain in the hands of the people until such time as they should amend either the specific State Constitution or federal Constitution to permit them.
Barron v Baltimore concisely dealt with this view of yours. There can be little doubt that having some right to recourse should government action deny you use of your property would be among the Privileges and Immunities referenced in A4:S2:C1 BUT Barron’s lawyers argued that the BoR should apply when, as Marshall pointed out, it expressly did not. Barron’s lawyers argued the wrong part of the Law, and as the job of a judge is not to be an advocate for either side, Marshall honorably declined any temptation to insert better arguments than those actually presented. Had they simply argued the right bit of the Law it is likely Barron could have won some consideration.
I believe you will find that among the several States that ratified the Constitution that the right to bear Arms was common to all the several States. With them it is right and proper to contend with how much regulation is too much regulation; however, with the federal we should labor to point out that it, having no delegated power at all for these federal laws, should not have them at all per the 10th Amendment.
So, you are saying, the States are free to do what ever they want even if it tramples on your absolute, God given rights?
You think that rights are not absolute too?
Can the people of a State reinstitute slavery?
Can a State prohibit you from your 1st A rights? 2nd A rights?
Are those rights declatroy and restrictive as agreed to by the States or are you just pushing your agenda?
The man is truly a sanctimonious jerk.
Put retards like Kasich on the No-President list.
There’s no ‘due process’ involved in the ‘no fly’ list... Drudge had a story about Homeland being infiltrated with 72 Muslims on the terrorist watch list:
(http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/)
Letting “Homeland’ decide who can fly and who can’t isn’t much different than letting ISIS make the call.
Kasich’s an embarrassment - I’m glad he’s establishment and NOT one of us.
Democrats don’t want to say ‘radical Islam because the plan is to lump in traditional Christians who are conservative with Muslim ‘extremist’... We - traditional Americans - ARE the only enemy Democrats feel passion about because they’re thugs and we might be able to take power away from them.
In the same way imposing a “tax” for not complying with a federal regulation about insurance entirely arrogates the right to having due process.
The proper description for any imposition imposed for not obeying a regulation is a “fine” and not a tax. But to impose a fine means everyone gets their day in court....
Have you somehow missed what I wrote about A4:S2:C1?
The 9th Amendment mentions other rights retained by the people, which would of course mean those retained by them at the time the Amendment was ratified. Moreover, in calling them “others” it indicates a relationship between the enumerated rights of amendments 1-8 and unenumerated in the 9th ... that the enumerated are either statements of or elaborations on the same body of unenumerated rights.
A4:S2:C1 mentiones the Privileges and Immunities of the people among the several States. Like the 9th Amendment it does not enumerate those rights ... but this is no issue because, as I pointed out earlier, out Common Law rights were supposed to be rooted in the idea that what is not forbidden is lawful.
So if there is only one relevant law, our rightful Common Law, applicable over all of the several States at the time that both were ratified would it not follow that they are both in reference to the same body of rights?
A4:S2:C1 is expressly directed to the several States. The BoR to the federal. None are left out in the cold by this arrangement.
Cut the subterfuge.
Do you believe a state can take away your 2nd A rights?
Exactly how does that work?
Buellar, Buellar???
Would love to read your input on Rurudyne’s comments on this thread.....
They’ve already infringed - they just can’t resist the last push to outright outlaw firearm possession by any non government entity
>>>Would love to read your input on Rurudyne’s comments on this thread<<<
I’ll take a look. Is he a Mailman? LOL
I hear you, I was on the no fly list for years. I could never find out why. Finally I was no longer on the list. Did not enjoy flying for a few years.
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.