Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
And yes Francis... they do apply. Once an Amendment is ratified by the States and Congress, Art 6 para 2 comes into play. Your idiot judges need to take a remedial reading class.
Not only the idiot judges, but idiot Presidents, Congresses, state legislators, federal and state attorneys, special interests -- all of them, for 150 years, living the big lie. Right?
Power protects itself. Do you think the British aristocracy just went bad over night?
About time you caught up with the rest of us...
>>?”If these are fundamental rights, endowed to man by our creator why would the states be allowed to violate them?”
Fundamental rights, on the other hand, may or may not be protected in a constitution by government (society), depending on the will of the majority of the people. The Founders were creating a federated republic — they wanted each state to be free to set up their own constitution and their own Bills of Rights.<<
Very interesting distinction. . I always enjoy talking to you whether we agree or not - you make me think.
Now, thinking about this... inalienable rights include life liberty and pursuit of happiness but are not limited to those, yes. And in English law and in some of John Locke’s writings some property rights are not alienable ( which I guess mean inalienable)...
Doesn’t the bill of rights restate some these inalienable rights in more detail?
One of your emanations within a penumbra?
What thing is that, Jesse?
There goes females and anyone over 45. Oh, and there goes your "unconvicted" dodge as well.
That's exactly what the Nunn case was about. Try to keep up.
And once again, state laws, NOT the 2nd Amendment, protect the right to keep and bear arms against state infringements. If you ever come up to a federal court case to contrary, ping me.
I was talking about the guys in the pictures you post, but I don’t see any reason women should be excluded. I was just quoting the law, which doesn’t always mean I support it.
So what about those scary guys in your pictures? Are they somehow excluded from the militia? Can they vote?
Your pictures look a lot to me like attempts to promote the racist gungrabber line that gun control disarms criminals, especially those dangerous, non-white kinds of criminals. Meanwhile, the guys with the longest rap sheets in those photos probably have the largest arsenals, because gun control doesn’t work.
You were talking out of both sides of your mouth. The "unconvicted" caveat you inserted is contradicted by the "17 to 45" standard you reverted to later.
The District of Columbia is a state? Trippy.
Starve.
Interesting observation. Yes they do. That happens to be the way the U.S. Supreme Court has been incorporating some of them through the 14th amendment and making them applicable to the states.
The 14th amendment says: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. So, if some right in the Bill of Rights is found to be a component of life, liberty, or property, then the state must protect that right, also.
As an example of this, the first amendment incorporation decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925):
"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press -- which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress -- are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."
Now, by saying that freedom of the press, for example, is a fundamental right, this means that no government in the United States can abridge the press, even the foreign press (more on this below).
The U.S. Supreme Court may decide that the RKBA is indeed an individual right. But will they find that it's a fundamental right (meaning every person -- foreign visitor, illegal, children, the insane, felons, etc.)?
Yes, we can "reasonably regulate" fundamental rights (though some posters say that shouldn't be allowed -- "What part of 'infringed' don't ...), but the law would have to pass the "strict scrutiny" test, not simply "rational basis". Under that new standard, I think foreign visitors can make an excellent case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court why their fundamental RKBA should be protected!
Art 6 para 2, the 2A, the 9th A, and the 10th A....<p.
You call those “emanations within a penumbra”? No wonder you are having so much trouble with this.
William Rawle said is was a restraint on both. So did Gallatin. And Henry. And Coxe. And... oh... never mind. Yo udon't care what the truth is. You are just happy to have someone to piss off with your idiocy.
All you gotta do is answer YES or NO. Why are you so afraid of this simple question:
Are the Crips and Bloods militias?
William Rawle said regulation wasn't infringement.
Anyone expecting substance from you would.
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.