Of course the Constitution is the "supreme Law." For reasons cogently explained in the Federalist, either it is the supreme law, or it is ineffective. But you leap from that jurisprudential verity to the conclusion that restrictions and definitions in the Constitution should be ignored.
When the Constitution says "Congress" it means Congress. Is that hard to understand? By your logic, the restriction of the Presidency to native-born Americans over the age of 35 should also be ignored, because the Constitution is the supreme law. Therefore, anyone should be allowed to run for President. You seem to think that the Constitution is overruling itself on the subject of the Bill of Rights.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You should leave alone subjects that you do not understand.
Congressman Billybob
The first words of the First Amendment are, "CONGRESS shall make no law ...." It is crystal clear that the Bill of Rights was written to restrain the power and reach of the federal government only.
Not true. Those "first words" do not lead to that conclusion.
The BOR's are part of the supreme "Law of the Land".
- Thus, it is crystal clear that the Bill of Rights was written to restrain the power and reach of all levels of government, fed, state, & local.
The 9th & 10th amendments then prove that it is the peoples rights that are protected from powers not delegated to the US, nor prohibited by the constitution to the states.
Our RKBA's is quite clearly enumerated, and is not to be infringed. - Period. ---- Such infringements are prohibited to States by the 'Law of the Land'. [See Art. VI.]
As a self proclaimed constitutional lawyer who has argued before the USSC B-bob, -- it is simply mind-boggling that you cannot address the simple facts I've outlined above.
Why is that?
Ah, tpaine, you intellectual ankle-biter. You've found yet another constitutional subject about which you are as dumb as a hoe handle.
Ah, b-bob, typically you again make personal asides in an effort to disguise your inability to argue the issue.
Of course the Constitution is the "supreme Law." -- But you leap from that jurisprudential verity to the conclusion that restrictions and definitions in the Constitution should be ignored.
Nope, not at all. You're simply lying when you claim I've ignored any 'definitions/restrictions'. - You can't cite the instances, can you?
When the Constitution says "Congress" it means Congress. Is that hard to understand?
Not at all. "The first words of the First Amendment, -- "CONGRESS shall make no law ...." can be understood to apply to the rest of the 1st amendment. But then YOU make a leap to apply those words to amendments 2 thru 7. -- Why?
The 2nd amendment clearly applies to an inalienable right of the people of the United States.
By your "dumb as a hoe handle" logic only Congress is prohibited from infringing upon our RKBA's, despite the clear words of our supremacy clause in Art VI.
Why is that? - Why do YOU want States to have the power to prohibit assault weapons, b-bob?
Perhaps it is you who should leave alone subjects that you do not understand, "Congressman" Billybobby.
Thanks for the link.