Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick
The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
In a letter sent earlier this month to David Codrea, co-founder of Citizens of America, a California-based gun-rights organization, Lockyer said that while his duty is to enforce the laws of his state and the nation, "the responsibilities of my office do not permit me to independently interpret the state and federal Constitutions or the statutes written pursuant to those Constitutions."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29009
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Not exactly...the 2nd Amendment refers to the rights of the people, and say that it shall not be infringed. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law".
As for the earlier traffic court argument, as far as I am aware, jury trial still applies in criminal court cases, but not civil court cases - and the 6th Amendment specifies criminal trials.
The supreme court can incorporate my butt for all I care. UNALIENABLE rights (both enumerated and unenumerated) of the individual are valid on every square inch of U.S. soil.
The SC is wrong and fallable each and every time they legislate from the bench and/or rule contrany to the constitution and BOR. Period.
The only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court of the United States. It and it alone interprets what the Constitution says. They cannot be wrong. They are infalliable. The Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear on this subject.Here, let me re-word that for you.You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
The only opinion that matters is the King's. He and he alone interprets what the Law says. He cannot be wrong. He is infalliable. The Kinghas spoken loud and clear on this subject.Substitute Der Fuehrer, Secretary General or anyone else in there. I hope you understand my point. In the end, the opinion that counts is the people's, just like the Declaration of Independence points out so eloquently ... and the people MUST stay armed to retain that ultimate power. It is clearly what was intended by those who founded the nation under inspiration from Almighty God IMHO.You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
On this issue, these people are treading into dangerous territory and its time to stand up and say to their face that this is the case. They will push it to a civil war if they continue.
I don't want that. I don't seek that. I try to do everything I can to avoid anything like that. But that is where it is being pushed and they need to understand it IMHO ... particularly when statements as blatant and direct as this are touted about.
Let's walk through some simple reasoning: The 2nd amendment is a part of the Constitution of the Unites States. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution states: 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.
I reread the Constitution, including the amendments which are a part of it, and can't find anywhere that suggests the Supremacy Clause only applies to parts of the Constitution that judges declare it to. Thus, "This 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 notwithstanding.
What part of that does the CA attorney general not understand?
Was this also true when they passed down the Dred Scott decision? The Supreme Court also has been known to reverse itself from time to time.
They are the final arbiters on the constitutionality of laws, but it's just a bit of a stretch to say that they cannot be wrong.
The fact that people are persecuted for exercising their inalienable rights doesn't make it right.
Can we apply that same logic to the Roe v. Wade and the alledged 'right to an abortion'.
God, the founding fathers, the constitution, the BOR... shall I go on? The SC are bound by the constitution. That are wrong every time they rule outside of it.
You are obviously a lawyer. I suggest you get your head out of the minuta of the hundreds of thousands of activist, socialist, collectivist, unconstitutional, liberty violating laws and court decisions that are on the books, and get back to fundamentals. Please read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the BOR, and learn a little about the concept of INALIENABLE rights.
The Court decides what the Constitution means. By definition, they can't rule outside of it.
As far as overruled decisions go, they weren't wrong when they were made; the scope of the Constitution changed.
You might not like that argument, but it's true. By definition, the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. Incidentally, why does the Court have the power of judical review? Because it says it does--you can't find the power of judicial review in the Constitution; it's not there. They have power because they say they do. If you want a more compelling case for infallibility, look no further.
Wrong.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- Excerpt, Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution.
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.