Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
Better start reading now. You've got a long way to go before you have anywhere near the historical perspective you ought to have to even be educated enough to make a lick of sense. Your Brady Bunch reasoning is getting a bit much to take.
Also, that snippet from 1856 was about applying the Constitution to the new Territories. This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently when gun-banning folks like yourself decided that via judicial malfeasance you can make a "living Constitution" mean anything you want it to.
Your "incorporation" doctrine is the last gasp of a dying mindset. One that is trying to preserve some imaginary State power to ignore basic human Rights and institute tyranny at the State level. This is as wrong headed legally as it is philosophically. Neither the State, nor the FedGov has the power, nor the "right", to infringe on our Rights as Individuals.
Not without suffering the consequences at least...
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Yep. Just as the Constitution applied to the states. So?
It said that "the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms ... as defined in the constitution of the United States". And that definition was that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.
"This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently"
Up until just recently? United States v. Cruikshank was an 1875 case where the U.S. Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government".
They even went further by saying that NONE of the BOR applied to the states:
"This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State Government in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone."
Bullsh*t. In the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall make no law". This does not carry over into the Second that clearly states "shall not be infringed" and makes no distinction as to who may not infringe on said Right. In fact, the Constitution explicitly state that the "Supreme law of the Land" and "laws of any State notwithstanding" are subject to "shall not be infringed". Your mindless maundering notwithstanding, it means exactly what it says.
Your Cruickshank argument has been refuted how many times now? Do we really need to rehash it again?
You don't seem to like people having Rights very much. Are you SURE you are on the correct website? Your logic would go over a lot better on DU.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
-- William Rawle, 1825
So, California can't disarm the people, eh?
But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." Let's see... you don't like guns. You don't like any of the post Civil War reforms meant to apply Rights to freed slaves. You prefer legal alterations of meaning instead of the plain language used. You seem extraordinarily dogged on the subject.
Do you want a return to the pre-civil war days? How many slaves do you want to own? Or do you just want to keep those other races fro mriding your bus or drinking from your water fountain? What other kinds of abuses or individual freedom would you like to see enacted at the State level? Are you a fan of using emminent domain to transfer private property to private developers as well?
Bobby... you just ain't too bright are you boy...
Gobbledygook.
Article VI states that This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land -- no matter what had existed before -- and the states and the federal government are bound by it.
It does NOT say that EVERYTHING in the constitution applies to the states.
Haven't you ever, in your life, signed a contract that specifies your responsibilities and the other party's responsibilities? Come on.
And by any restrictions placed on general government to protect our Rights. It was the entire PURPOSE of having a Bill of Rights in the first place. That because some States were ignoring some Rights seen as essential, and because there was worry that a strong central authority was seen as dangerous to individual liberty, that they put those restrictions on legislative and judicial action at the highest level they could where they would apply to ALL US citizens.
But some folks don't like that very much. It ruins their chances of passing local ordnances or State laws that can be used to remove those Rights and keep the public in check.
Folks like you apparently.
Fine. See you on the next thread. I'm done with you on this one.
Personal attacks? Try "accurate description". If the shoe fits, wear it.
"Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right."
The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right? Baloney!
"Fine. See you on the next thread. I'm done with you on this one."
Thank God!
We are saying the same thing. I am doing it by explaining the plain english structure to the clause rather than just maintaining the interpretation you state plainly. Those that can understand the plain sense, already do. Those that can't or won't must be led to do so by clear reasoning and understanding.
Well, tpaine, robertpaulsen is right again.
Amusing that you think so robert.
Let's examine the quote.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
-- William Rawle, 1825
So, California can't disarm the people, eh?
Well, if CA [or the feds] "-- in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this [2nd] amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. --"
That's what Rawles wrote bob, yet you imagine he didn't.
Your mind is playing strange tricks on you if you think the quote above backs your position here:
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
It is a right assigned to a group -- the assembled. Defend how it is an individual right.
If you were to assemble by yourself on a streetcorner, you'd probably get a ticket for loitering or vagrancy ... or solicitation. I'd love to see you in front of a judge defending your individual "right to assemble".
You guys are funny.
"It is a right assigned to a group -- the assembled."
Defend how it is a collective right.
Your logic is funny.
But nowhere does the author say that California cannot do it.
I was right. And as House would say, "Now there were three wasted words".
It's a right only held when one is a member of a group.
How can "freedom of assembly" be an individual right?
It's the Right, for a bunch of Individuals, to form groups. Your attempts to ascribe a varient meaning are beyond the pale.
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.