Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick
The sovereign states and their people who were delegating various powers and rights to the newly formed federal government.
It has occurred to me that in times like these, perhaps in any times, private ownership of guns is more than a right -- though it is a right -- it is a duty.
I don't think so.
And - if it is so - well, in the words of Jailbird Congressman James Trafficant: "Beam me up, Scotty!"
The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public securityNow that puts it in a little different light, doesn't it? First they assert that the Amendments apply only to acts of Congress, and then shrug and say that it doesn't apply in the case of arms since that would deprive the national government of its "rightful resource".
Funny how that part of the decision seems to not come up.
What "usurpation" are you referring to?
"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike." -- Alexander Hamilton
This citation indicates to me that it is OK if some body other than the U.S. Congress infringes upon the 2nd Amendment. Who might that be other than a state legislature?
Infringement of a Constitutional right = usurpation, IMHO.
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."
The Second Amendment is a restriction on Congress, not on "some body other."
Try it again, replacing "some body other" with "some other body", which is how I intended it.
IF you are telling me that the Constitution ONLY prohibits the federal legislature from infringing upon an enumerated right, but any of the 50 state bodies can legitimately infringe upon that same right, then your argument is hereby REJECTED, as that interpretation renders the Constitution meaningless.
The founders, a minority from the several States, commented and made claims regarding rights and justifications for the goverment they created.
The federal government.
No it doesn't.
Convenient for some it seems...
The decision was a piece of Post-Reconstruction claptrap, designed to reassert "states rights" in the South and make sure that the Negroes (just using older vernacular here for color) didn't get the rights the 14th Amendment was supposed to give them. And the North went along with it because people in Indiana didn't want to see Black men with guns any more than white guys in Bogalusa. The Radical Republicans had run their course and after making a few political deals with the Southerners settled into becoming the party of the Northern Bankers who had backed them in the first place. This is where the modern Republican party begins.
A good little link, with good comments on both Cruikshank and Presser can be found here: Comments on Cruikshank And Presser
It essentially says what I just said, only in more detail. All of this crap from the late 19th century is just now getting cleaned up, and Emerson is the wave of the future, and these anti-Constitutional diatribes will be swept away.
Prior to the War (what some call the Civil War, what I call the War That Divided My Family), the Dred Scott decision made no bones about how it regarded the Second Amendment, as can be seen when it discusses the implication of citizenship for Blacks:
More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.Note that Justice Taney & Co. had no problem believing that the Second Amendment embodied an individual right which transcended state lines. That's what scared the crap out of them: the spectre of angry black men marauding across the country.
The Fourteenth enshrined that in black and white. It said, Yes, By God, they can. And that's where Cruikshank comes in. It's no accident that it was the decision of a Southern Judge in a Southern Circuit Court. It was an Ad Hoc decision designed to declare that black is white, the moon is blue, and the Constitution is always juuuusst out of reach of those pesky dark people.
Isn't it hilarious to see a screaming leftist like Bill Lockyer using it to justify his attempt to ban guns?
And as for you, Roscoe, He of the Selective Quote, all I can say is: do you have a picture of Nathan Bedford Forrest glowering down from your wall?
Not that I dislike General Forrest. Hell, I have family that was with him at Chickamauga! Great horse guy...but he kinda got a bad rap from all that post-war fun with the guys in the sheets.
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.