Congress shall make no law

There is a point about this phrase also, and it dovetails nicely with the courts going around bending the Constitution.

You do know that "Congress shall make no law ... establishing a religion" means that a high school football coach can't lead his team in a prayer before a game, right?

Sure it's logical. Doesn't everyone know that the rights in the Bill of Rights are rights for the government, not individuals?

What a bunch of jerks.

Yeah, it's obvious that the 1st amendment intended to prevent students from praying before a game. It's obvious that the 2nd means only that states can form the National Guard, that bit about 'the people' is taken out of context. I'm trying to remember which amendment it is that says "the right of the people to abort pregnancy shall not be infringed"...I know it's in there, Judge Reinhardt says so.

Q. What does one have to do to quality as a traitor or enemy of the state these days?

A. Try to exercise your Constitutional rights, especially the 2nd Amendment.

From the website of the National Archivist at the The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)... The Charters of Freedom
The Declaration of Independence The Constitution The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

When you read the first ten amendments to the constitution, it is clear that in each and every one referring to "the people" that it is the powers of government that are being curtailed. The rights of individual citizens are preserved as superior to those of the state.

The 2nd no different from the others...

You do know that "Congress shall make no law ... establishing a religion" means that a high school football coach can't lead his team in a prayer before a game, right?

Yeah that is why they stopped dinner prayers at VMI too right?

But if you want to take that a step further, then you could argue that say NEA is using public dollars to "establish" the Liberal/Atheist "religion". Maybe we should sue them? Seems only fair :)

ctrl

<-- Chronological -->

Find

<-- Thread -->

[CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft

From: Euphorian
Subject: [CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 14:29:58 -0800

-Caveat Lector-

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL

       www.sfgate.com       Return to regular view

Showdown looming on right to own guns
Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 6, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL

A federal appeals court upheld California's ban on military-style assault weapons 
Thursday,
ruling that individuals have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution's Second Amendment preserves only the right of states to organize and
maintain militias, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in a 
3-0
decision.

The ruling put the court at odds with the Bush administration and a decision last year 
by a
federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The amendment "was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained,
thus preserving the people's right to bear arms," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt. "The
amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to 
private
gun ownership or possession."

STAGE SET FOR HIGH COURT ACTION

The ruling paves the way for the controversial issue to be addressed by the nation's 
highest
court, which has not touched the topic since 1939.

"When you have something like the Ninth Circuit, the largest judicial federal circuit 
in the
country, coming out with a ruling like this, it means we're within a couple years of 
it coming
before the Supreme Court," said Peter Keane, dean of the Golden Gate University Law
School. "Because it's a hot issue, the Supreme Court hasn't wanted to deal with it."

The state Legislature passed the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1989,
outlawing 75 high-powered weapons that have rapid-fire capabilities. The ban was
expanded in 1999 to include copycat weapons with similar features.

The original version was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2000, when it was
challenged by a group of gun rights activists who said the ban violated the Second
Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and several other constitutional provisions.

Reinhardt said he concluded that the Second Amendment cannot be used to strike down the
ban after a lengthy analysis of the amendment's history and text. The amendment states:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right 
of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

His interpretation of the amendment's intent matched that of the federal government's
before Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote a letter to the National Rifle Association 
in
May. In the letter, Ashcroft declared that the Second Amendment protected the 
individual
right to bear arms. The Justice Department took that position formally in a U.S. 
Supreme
Court filing a year later, saying the right was subject to "reasonable restrictions" 
on certain
types of weapons and categories of owners.

Ashcroft's views were endorsed by a federal appeals court in New Orleans in October 
2001.
Despite concluding that the Constitution protected an individual's right to bear arms, 
the
court upheld a federal law banning gun possession by people under restraining orders 
for
domestic violence.

Because the issue has become so debated, Reinhardt chose to address it with a
comprehensive opinion instead of relying on a similar decision rendered by the court 
six
years ago.

Matthew Nosanchuk, senior litigation counsel for the Violence Policy Center in 
Washington,
told the Los Angeles Times that the 86-page ruling was one of the most comprehensive
ever written on the Second Amendment.

"This is a very important contribution that should drive a stake through the heart of 
the
individual rights position," Nosanchuk said.

RULING REJECTS 9 CHALLENGES

In Thursday's decision, Reinhardt expressly disagreed with the Second Amendment
interpretations by Ashcroft and the New Orleans court. He also noted that the San 
Francisco
court, which oversees federal courts in nine Western states, had ruled in 1996 that the
Constitution does not protect individual gun ownership.

The ruling rejected challenges to the law by nine gun owners. The court then went a 
step
further and broadened the law by striking down an exemption that allowed retired police
officers to own assault weapons, ruling that it served no public purpose.

The NRA expressed disappointment with the ruling.

"For 131 years, we've been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law- 
abiding
Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an individual right and 
will
continue to do so," spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

Chronicle news services contributed to this report. / E-mail Bob Egelko at
begelko@sfchronicle.com.

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.  Page A - 1

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
CTRL@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM</A>

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Om

[CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft, Euphorian

<-- Chronological -->

<-- Thread -->

Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital

Isn't this the group that "shared" (free) office space with the Million Mom March, not mention officers and staff?

Only Article X mentions state rights

Even Art. 10 doesn't mention state rights, but rather powers reserved to the states or to the people. States, including the United States, have only powers, people have rights and powers.

isnt cali currently fighting about 100,000 gang members right now. Asking for more leo's because they are understaffed. And they want this?