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.
I doubt a state would try to totally disarm its citizens. Worst case is that they would probably just require that the arms be kept in an armory, waiting for your call to "form a militia".
See #159.
Perhaps that is why the 2d says"KEEP AND BEAR"
Can you show where "KEEP" actually means store in a gov controled area?
Keep means keep.
This came about due to the fact that the first amendment was incorporated under the due process clause of the 14th amendment and made applicable to the states.
The second amendment has not been incorporated and still only applies to the federal government.
The States have always had a limited police power to 'reasonably regulate' on issues such as use & possession of booze.
-- That police power is limited by our US Constitution & its Amendments.
[see the 10th, 14th, and Art VI]
States have no absolute power to prohibit any specific 'evil item' of property, - be it gun or booze, --- etc.
151 jonestown
If there is a conflict with federal law, no. Constitutional federal laws are supreme over conflicting state laws.
In the absence of federal laws, you are bound by state laws.
But you yourself said the 2d does not apply to the federal gov in the District of Columbia and that you don't know where it applies.
Don't you have a headache?
So why did they put it there if it has no meaning and write so much about it if means nothing until some time in the future?
So we really have the first 7 amendments only
Only in your dreams.
Wow. That is severe. I confess. I didn't know that.
But the constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
State gun control laws are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND'S 2d amendment.
You are playing a circle game.
As I said, convoluted exemptions are provided - but they are entirely built on the premise that all arms are prohibited, and the exemptions are easily revoked.
That is the 10th amendment.
Thank you for pointing that out.
See you can learn to understand reality.
It just takes a while to coax it out of your many, many pathways of confusion.
Hang in there eventually you will put it all together.
Keep where? Hmmmm. It doesn't say, does it? Could be just about anywhere, right? Hell, you can have a friend keep your guns for you, temporarily, right?
He might live in the next state, but he's keeping them for you.
I have some very expensive guns. I keep them in safe storage. In Florida. I have a right to keep them. Anywhere that's legal.
What's your problem? I can very easily see a state saying that they must be kept in an armory.
Change your mind?
If kept in a gov armory then THE PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER KEEPING like the supreme law of the land states SHALL NOT be infringed.
If I allow someone else to keep something then I no longer KEEP AND BEAR that item.
The amendment says just that KEEP AND BEAR SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
How much more simple can it get?
IF the state prevents me from KEEPING then that is an infringement.
I'm starting to think that maybe you cannot read. I say "incorporate". You read "ratify".
One more time. I said, in my opinion, the second amendment should apply to the District of Columbia. You didn't read that?
You know I think you understand perfectly well what the US constitution is all about because you keep contradicting yourself.
I think you need attention and have found that perpetual argument gets you some attention.
You convince yourself that you are right then you contradict your own argument.
Can you find a hobby of some kind other than argument?
What ever happened to "A person shall be secure in his papers and possessions".
I DID READ THAT.
That is what I replied to.
You said the 2d applies to the federal gov only but not to DC where the ferdral gov is in charge which means it applies nowhere.
That is where I caught you flatfooted and neutered you whole argument.
But true to form you can't see that.
You need a girlfriend or something.
MissAmericanPie wrote:
What ever happened to "A person shall be secure in his papers and possessions".
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.