Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick
A nation and a State are not the same thing, as Jefferson well understood.
One thing that bothers me with tying that into the Bill of Rights is that it is implying that those Unalienable Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are simply "priveleges" granted by the federal government.
And nothing in the Constitution stripped the states of all of their rights.
Not neccessarily so.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
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 pretense 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.
W. Rawle, A view of the Constitution, 125-56 (1829).
A mere 38 years after ratification of the Bill of Ritghts.
A little latter, in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) :
the Georgia Supreme Court wrote:
I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States. The court held otherwise, however, in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (18 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says: "The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision: 'Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals, whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that that Constitution 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 not withstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence."
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States, in their act of ratification, recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.
Straw Man Alert. The original proposition was that *States* (and governments) have no rights, not nations or societies.
True,as far as it goes, but the states powers are limited in various ways by the Constitution. For example, they are forbidden from keeping troops, as distinguished from militia, without permission of Congress.
Actually to be precise the 2nd amendment protects a right, it is not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right (of the people). However the second amendment also provides an immunity from having the RKBA infringed. The 14th amendment extends that immunity to actions by the several states.
That's right.
But Bauer in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove was clearly quoting Pressor quoting Cruikshank. And out of context too.
What part of "No state shall" do you not understand? What is it that no state shall do? "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." The author of the 14th amendment stated that the "priviledges and immunities" were those protected by the first 8 amendments to the Constitution, although they are not defined in the amendment itself, a grevious oversight, but then the authors of the Bill of Rights didn't define lots of terms, like "arms" for example.
They're not, they are "immunities" from governmental action against those "Unalienable rights".
If you mean their powers, then of course not. They never had any rights anyway. The tenth amendment protects the powers of the states, other than those prohibited to the states by the main body of the Constitution, and those of the people, against encroachment by the Federal government. People have rights and powers, states, meaning governments, whether national or of the Several States, have only powers.
Unfortunately you are correct, and what you are saying is going over everyone's head.
The folks on this thread are well-meaning, but they do not realize that the SC has the power to uphold a newly ratified slavery law in any state (assuming it ever got to them).
I gotta laugh at these folks - they don't realize the the power of the federal judiciary (I'm including the SC) has been our ruination for the last 70 years.
If the Founding Fathers had a blind spot, it was their lack of understanding that giving 9 men in robes the power to do anything was problematic.
Roscoe: Nations have rights, societies have rights, anarchists have noise.121
Zon: Very telling that you fail to mention the only thing that does have rights -- the individual. Anarchists detest the government upholding and protecting individual rights and private property rights.123
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.