Posted on 01/25/2005 3:57:10 PM PST by jonestown
Congress Shall Make No Law
by Matt Giwer
Without going through a myriad of examples of Congress exceeding it delegated authority, let us cut to the quick.
In passing laws in areas not delegated to it in the Constitution, it is not, repeat NOT, responding to new social pressures and changes in the world. I grant there have been many changes in the two hundred plus years since it was adopted. But what Congress is doing is not adapting to those changes.
What Congress is doing is exactly the state of affairs the Constitution itself was intended to prohibit.
For example, at no time was the granting of the power to regulate interstate commerce intended to me the power to prohibit interstate commerce.
If the power to regulate were intended to be the power to prohibit interstate commerce then the federal government would have been granted the power to economically isolate the states. No one suggests that was a power granted to Congress.
Yet, while agreeing there is no power of prohibition, we have many laws prohibiting some forms of interstate commerce. Try selling kiddie porn across state lines with an FBI agent present and see what happens. That is the power of prohibition that was not granted in the general and obviously does not exist in the particular, ANY particular.
The assault weapons ban is the same issue. It is clear that if Congress has the power to ban the manufacture of assault weapons and prohibit them from interstate commerce then in fact Congress has the power to ban any and all interstate commerce, regardless of the commodity.
If Congress should decide it does not want people traveling between states it clearly has the power to make doing so a felony if you grant it has the power to prohibit any activity between the states.
-Snip-
Technology does not change human nature.
19+1 rounds in a handgun instead of one shot flintlocks do not increase crime. In the history of London the single most effective thing to decrease crime was gaslights on the streets. The "guest bedroom" came about as no dinner guest in his right mind would go home after dark in the best of neighborhoods.
So are increasing gun restrictions a result of increased technology? Of course not. But why the increased restrictions?
Because human nature wants regimentation of human behavior.
Regulating the arms a person may possess is as old as human history. When Romans were using short swords "civilian" swords were limited to a fraction of that length. When Japan saw its Samurai system threatened by black powder it banned guns rather than getting better guns. When the peasants revolted against Peter the Great's attempt to industrialize Russia they were banned from having any weapons.
So what is new? The people who claim new laws are necessary because of changing times are NOT talking about laws which address the changes in our times. They are in fact regressing to the exact traditional and primitive response people have always had. And the people specifically did not give Congress the power to exercise those primitive responses.
Why should Congress have the power to prohibit Kentucky from growing and exporting marijuana? Where is it written Congress has the power to prohibit arbitrary items from interstate commerce? The last time that was tried, it was called Prohibition and took a Constitutional Amendment.
Where is it written Constitutional Amendments are no longer needed to do the same thing?
I am fully aware that the points I am raising are at best thirty years away from a "concerted and no failures along the way" effort to be recognized again as the meaning of the Constitution. It really is time to start over. At present the country is on a path of worship it prior decisions and refusing to admit its previous errors lest "the turmoil be too great."
It is trivial to point out that a finding against all federal drug laws would wreck havoc upon our country. But it is more important to uphold justice in that they have committed no crime as Congress had no power to pass any such law.
We are arguing our own precedent rather than the Constitution. The Constitution is not sacred. It can be changed at any time and the means of changing it are stated within it.
But when these "forces of change" are in fact regressions to exactly the arbitrary powers of government it was intend to prohibit, that is not progress. It is not response to changing times. It is regression to pre-constitutional times when anything was fair game. Gentlemen and ladies, it looks like a duck, it waddles like a duck. I would prefer to believe it is a duck than a Constitutional law.
A little perspective is required. In 1875, neither the first nor the second amendment applied to the states.
99 robertpaulsen
Do I understand you correctly?
If your silly reading were correct, Section 2 would have been redundant, and thus left out.
Also, you say it was the correct decision to keep blacks from arming themselves because the racist State Leg. said so? I would say the right to self defense and keep and bear arms is inherent, you say it is just a State's rights?
What????
Section 1 simply repealed the 18th.
Section 2 transferred the wet/dry power from the federal government to the states.
Look, once you figure this out, get back to me. Your argument is ludicrous.
The next time you post to me, have a cite or a link to back up your statement, otherwise it will be ignored.
About what? What a bizzare accusation. I'm just presenting relevant laws and seeing how they piece together. Of course, no discussion of Constitutional law is going to be made entirely in a few sentences; I wondered aloud whether under certain conditions no state could forbid at least some citizens from owning muskets, and would then follow on by seeing where that extends ... instead you pointed to tangential limitations and then oddly accused me.
If you're willing to analyze, great.
If you're going to vaguely and harshly accuse me, then there is no point in further discussion.
This was a 1991 series of 1000 Glock 17s which had special engraving on it. A list of names of all the coalition countries is engraved down the top of the slide; "Operation Desert Storm/January 16-February 27, 1991" is engraved on the right side. On the left side is "New World Order/Commemorative".
He's making a very interesting point therein. If the 2nd is in place to ensure the people can arm themselves for militia duties in service to the nation, and the nation can call upon the people to and in that service, then by the Supremacy Clause the states have no business interfering with the Constitutional power of the nation to call up a self-armed militia. In contrast you're arguing that the states could conceivably prohibit citizens from owning any arms, thus neutering the federal militia. So: when state and federal powers conflict, who wins?
BTTT
It was the correct legal decision in 1876, yes.
"I would say the right to self defense and keep and bear arms is inherent, you say it is just a State's rights?"
State's rights? What are you talking about? You just throw around these terms ...
The RKBA is a fundamental right. You want to call it an inherent right, fine. Some call it a natural right.
It is up to the state in which you live whether the state is going to protect your inherent right. They don't have to. It's up to the citizens of that state, speaking through their elected state representatives, to decide.
That is why different states have different gun laws. Those gun laws can be changed by the citizens. The state constitution can be amended by the citizens.
You don't like your state's gun laws, either organize a grass roots effort to change the law or move to another state (if it's that important to you).
Whatever gun rights are protected by your state, those gun rights shall not be infringed by the federal government under the protection of the second amendment. The second amendment will NOT give you any gun rights that your state has not already given you.
See post 112.
Now, you want to sit there and type, "Who? Me? Not completely honest?", fine.
Don't, however, do that again with me. Play those games with others.
What, to fight the Sioux uprising? The Redcoats are coming? Hurry, Mandrake!
Hello? This is the year 2005. There is no state militia to call up. Hello? Anyone home?
The Supremacy Clause is irrelevant to this discussion.
In contrast you're arguing that the states could conceivably prohibit citizens from owning any arms, thus neutering the federal militia."
Yep. Though I like the "neutering the federal militia". My advice? Don't make that argument around intelligent people.
If as you say the 2d ammendment only applies to the federal gov. then why doesn't it apply to the District of Columbia?
Yes -- it repealed the source of Congress' power of prohibition, and thereby removed that power. Try to keep up with the class.
Because the drafters of the 21st wanted Congress to have the power to prohibit the subversion of state/territorial prohibition laws, they added Clause 2 (without which Congress would have had no prohibition power whatsoever -- the 18th was repealed, and nothing else in the Constitution supported any such power).
Nonsense; the states had that power prior to the 21st Amendment (and indeed prior to the 18th Amendment).
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.