Posted on 12/06/2002 7:19:21 AM PST by Joe Brower
No. They would only be void if they tried to abrogate one of the fundamental rights. As an example, drinking liquor is not a fundamental right (though some of the libertarians among us may beleive it is) so the Constitutional amendment taking away booze is not unconstitutional. However, an amendment that attempts to take away your fundamental right to freedom of speech or religion is unconstitutional because it attempts to abrogate a right superior to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court can and does make unconstitutional decisions.
The legislature can and does make unconstitutional laws; and the state legislatures can pass an unconstitutional amendment.
Good Idea. That's where I'm headed.
It doesn't look like you received an answer to your question. California has no RKBA in it's state constitution.
If that is the case why did some states have state religions? By your logic they were violating the 1st amendment. You have to remember that the founders feared a strong federal government and left most governing power in the hands of the states. The BOR was in the federal constitution as a protection from the Feds infringing on those rights, which BTW are not "unalienable" rights and can be removed by constitutional amendment. If the federal constitution was meant to apply to the states then there is no need for state constitutions at all.
Because I don't want all my eggs in one basket. That is why most states have their own BOR in the state constitutions. If the Feds decide to ban guns, they do it nation wide, if the states decide to ban guns or legalize dope, it affect only that state. Abortion is a prime example of the Feds overturning every state law in the land against abortion with one court decision.
Eehhh...wrong. The RESTRICTIONS on Government abusing those Rights can be removed...but the Rights themselves come from a much higher place than any mere government....and as such cannot be taken away except by the Author of those Rights.
..and the Founders who were at the Constitutional Convention KNEW that by creating a STRONG Federal Government..and a strong Constitution...that they were in fact bypassing pretty much all of the State Constititions.
A really good book that explains much of this is called (from memory..so I may be off by a couple of letters etc) is "Decision in Philadelpia".
Well researched......
redrock
Semantics. Yes just because the government makes your exercise of those rights impossible does not mean that you do not have those rights. You have the "right" to do drugs, the government makes it very unpleasant for you to do them if they catch you.
Now he will run to the mods and call you bad names. LOL
It is NOT just semantics.
If you believe that Rights come from Government....then obviously then the Government can take those Rights away anytime they want.
But...(and Alan Keyes has talked about this several times rather well) once you understand that your Rights come from a much higher Authority.....then you understand that whatever Government does is irrelevent...however badly or uncomfortable 'they' can make you.
If we are to surrender our Rights so easily...then it kinda makes a mockery of all of those men and women who fought and died in the Creation of this Nation...and the preserving of it.
redrock
Why do you think either feds or states have the power to ban guns?
Abortion is a prime example of the Feds overturning every state law in the land against abortion with one court decision.
The USSC overturned laws making it murder before viablity. States can still regulate abortion, as you well know. They lack the political will to do so.
They can kill you too so they are far from "irrelevant. I am not arguing that rights come from the creator but he does not appear to be interfering with the governments of a large portion of the world.
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.