Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: publiusF27
"Apart from your fear of how it might later be construed, is there some reason the RKBA is special, and should not be treated like others in the Bill of Rights?"

Like Scalia, I'm a big believer in original meaning. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. I've said it many times, incorporation has done more to destroy federalism that the Commerce Clause can ever hope to. I don't want any of the Bill of Rights incorporated.

I've seen what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to the Bill of Rights with their interpretations. I've seen what they've done to religious freedom in this country. We have a one-size-fits-all government, with five justices dictating to us what a 13-year-old can wear on a t-shirt to grade school in Akron, Ohio.

"A complete ban. Will that pass strict scrutiny?"

On machine guns? Yes. On assault rifles? Yes. On assault-style weapons? I doubt it. But none of that will come from this case -- Heller is really narrow.

1,275 posted on 11/19/2007 4:26:21 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1273 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
Like Scalia, I'm a big believer in original meaning. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. I've said it many times, incorporation has done more to destroy federalism that the Commerce Clause can ever hope to. I don't want any of the Bill of Rights incorporated.

Interesting. I never figured you for a Ron Paul supporter. ;-)

Do you want to turn back the incorporation which has taken place, or just stop new incorporation? And how do you square non-incorporation of this particular right under section 1 of the 14th amendment with the finding that it's an individual right? Is it somehow different from the other rights?
1,277 posted on 11/19/2007 5:06:26 PM PST by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1275 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

News on my favorite gun boards is that they will again consider the Parker/Heller matter in private conference tomorrow, with attorneys for both sides present. They say it’s unusual for the lawyers to be at these private meetings.

It suggests to me that they plan to take the case, but not for any reason given in the cert petition or the cross petition. Why else would they want the lawyers at the private conference?


1,280 posted on 11/19/2007 6:23:57 PM PST by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1275 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states.

What an entertaining notion.

There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law. George Mason -Objections to This Constitution of Government. November 22nd. 1787

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." - William Rawle. 1829. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America

"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the State. Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." - James Madison, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Art 6 Para 2. US Con

The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

What an odd notion indeed...

Far from putting legislation into the hands of the FedGov, it exempts it from both. Just because your idiot courts keep screwing it up and re-writing the Constitution doesn't mean you have to twist the original meaning.

1,283 posted on 11/20/2007 6:07:29 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1275 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

>>The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. I’ve said it many times, incorporation has done more to destroy federalism that the Commerce Clause can ever hope to. I don’t want any of the Bill of Rights incorporated.<<

If these are fundamental rights, endowed to man by our creator why would the states be allowed to violate them?


1,292 posted on 11/20/2007 10:08:53 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1275 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson