Posted on 03/16/2003 2:42:45 PM PST by Remedy
Because nothing else is logical?
It's "logical" to assume that I'd take your position in a debate between us? If you say so...
Look, you have the odd interpretation of our constitution, not me. -- Why? I don't know.
You have a rather odd conception of what consitutes an odd interpretation, seeing as how mine is backed up by (among other things I've mentioned) a unanimous supreme court ruling that elicited zero controversy.
The 'states rights' crowd want to be able to ignore individual rights, and always have.
Sorry if your experience with them hasn't been pleasant. But the only thing that's common to all "states' rights" people, by definition, is a desire to restrict the powers of the federal government, even though some may have less than pure motives for wishing this. In any case, anti-federalist thought from the founding era was almost exclusively characterized by a passionate jealousy for individual rights (with the unfortunate exception of a belief in slavery down south). Their clear concern was about the new, powerful, and distant federal government that had been created, not their preexisting state governments, which already had bills of rights.
The BOR's were passed to insure that all levels of government protected individual rights to life, liberty, and property, enumerated or not.
I'm still waiting to see your evidence of this.
Powers not prohibited to the States [& those prohibited were enumerated in the BOR's/Constitution], - are reserved to the states, -- or to the people. - Plain to me.
Circular logic to me. To each his own, I guess.
By who? States taking away gun rights from ex-slaves in 1868? -- Daft.
Interesting response to my statement that FEDERAL abuse of the Constitution would have been curtailed if Barron was still controlling. My statement was prompted by your acknowledgment that the federal government abuses the Constitution more than the states. I drew a straightforward conclusion, and you responded by reversing yourself. "Daft" indeed.
Because nothing else is logical? [to me]
It's "logical" to assume that I'd take your position in a debate between us? If you say so...
Ask a stupid question, get a flippant answer...
Look, you have the odd interpretation of our constitution, not me. -- Why? I don't know.
You have a rather odd conception of what consitutes an odd interpretation, seeing as how mine is backed up by (among other things I've mentioned) a unanimous supreme court ruling that elicited zero controversy.
I'll have to guess you're refering to B v B again, - which was made moot by the 14th. Your refusal to face the existence of the 14th is REALLY odd...
------------------------------
The 'states rights' crowd want to be able to ignore individual rights, and always have.
Sorry if your experience with them hasn't been pleasant. But the only thing that's common to all "states' rights" people, by definition, is a desire to restrict the powers of the federal government, even though some may have less than pure motives for wishing this. In any case, anti-federalist thought from the founding era was almost exclusively characterized by a passionate jealousy for individual rights (with the unfortunate exception of a belief in slavery down south). Their clear concern was about the new, powerful, and distant federal government that had been created, not their preexisting state governments, which already had bills of rights.
You are ignoring all the new states being formed under constitutional mandates [which mandates included the BOR's] to guarantee a republican form of government. Individual rights were also to be 'guaranteed'.
The BOR's were passed to insure that all levels of government protected individual rights to life, liberty, and property, enumerated or not.
I'm still waiting to see your evidence of this.
Why do you need more evidence? Why do you deny this logic? Tis a wonder...
Powers not prohibited to the States [& those prohibited were enumerated in the BOR's/Constitution], - are reserved to the states, -- or to the people. - Plain to me.
Circular logic to me. To each his own, I guess.
Not 'circular'. The 10th is a common sense summation of the intent of the BOR's, which you are fighting, for some odd reason.
------------------------------
By who? States taking away gun rights from ex-slaves in 1868? -- Daft.
Interesting response to my statement that FEDERAL abuse of the Constitution would have been curtailed if Barron was still controlling.
You asked that rather inane question, & that was my answer. In any case, the 14th is definitive to the point.
My statement was prompted by your acknowledgment that the federal government abuses the Constitution more than the states. I drew a straightforward conclusion, and you responded by reversing yourself.
Posing a 'might-have-been' guestion is hardly making a straight conclusion, & claiming so is "Daft" indeed. --- And, - any 'reversal' is in your imagination.
We were talking about the antebellum Constitution, as it stood during Marshall's tenure, remember?
Why do you need more evidence?
More evidence? You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders intended for the BOR to prohibit state action.
The 10th is a common sense summation of the intent of the BOR's...
...which was to restrict the power of the federal government. How you can read the 10th as a prohibition on state action is utterly beyond me.
Posing a 'might-have-been' guestion is hardly making a straight conclusion
There's no "might-have-been" about it. The federal courts are using your interpretation of the Constitution to abuse their power.
And, - any 'reversal' is in your imagination.
Of course. I only imagined that you first acknowledged that the feds are a worse abuser than the states, only to cite isolated state abuses as an excuse for keeping an abusive federal power.
We were talking about the antebellum Constitution, as it stood during Marshall's tenure, remember?
Your attempt to limit it, to avoid the reality of the 14th, is obvious, so yes, I 'remember'.
----------------------------
Why do you need more evidence?
More evidence? You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders intended for the BOR to prohibit state action.
The words "prohibited by it to the states" aren't evidence? --- The 10th is a common sense summation of the intent of the BOR's...
...which was to restrict the power of the federal government.
You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders did not intend for the BOR to prohibit state action violating individual rights.
How you can read the 10th as a prohibition on state action is utterly beyond me.
Why you WANT states to be able to violate the BOR's is beyond me.
----------------------------
Posing a 'might-have-been' question is hardly making a straight conclusion
There's no "might-have-been" about it. The federal courts are using your interpretation of the Constitution to abuse their power.
'They' use ANY means possible to abuse their power. -- 'My' interpretation, that of an original intent to uphold individual rights, fights both fed, state, & local abuses.
--- The absurd 'states rights' position says that rights can be abused by state & local officials despite their oaths to honor & defend our BOR's/Constitution.
----------------------------
And, - any 'reversal' is in your imagination.
Of course. I only imagined that you first acknowledged that the feds are a worse abuser than the states, only to cite isolated state abuses as an excuse for keeping an abusive federal power.
Good grief, now you claim I want to 'keep' "abusive federal power"?
Get off it, calm down, and try to make some rational points.
They're evidence of the fact that there are provisions within the Constitution that restrict state action. Like the supremacy clause, it provides absolutely no guide as to what those specific provisions are. Crazy that I should even have to explain this.
You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders did not intend for the BOR to prohibit state action violating individual rights.
Sure did. At #30. Want some more evidence to ignore? This is from the Massachusetts ratifying convention, one of several state ratifying conventions which insisted on a bill of rights as a condition for approving the Constitution:
"And, as it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government [emphasis added], The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution:" Source
Massachusetts, it should be emphasized, wasn't normally a "states' rights" kind of state. It had a strong manufacturing and merchant base, which naturally tended towards a desire for a central government strong enough to protect their interests. Nonetheless, they weren't interested in the kind of federal power which your interpretation has readily provided for.
Why you WANT states to be able to violate the BOR's is beyond me.
It's beyond me, too, since I never said they should be able to violate people's rights.
'They' [the federal courts] use ANY means possible to abuse their power.
As good a reason as any to leave them with the fewest possible avenues for doing so. Thanks for making my point.
Good grief, now you claim I want to 'keep' "abusive federal power"?
I don't care whether you want to or not. Your interpretation of the Constitution does that job regardless.
And he never will.
"It is settled law that the clause of the Fifth Amendment, protecting a person against being compelled to be a witness against himself, is not made effective by the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection against state action on the ground that freedom from testimonial compulsion is a right of national citizenship, or because it is a personal privilege or immunity secured by the Federal Constitution as one of the rights of man that are listed in the Bill of Rights." -- United States Supreme Court, Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
Yep. Unfortunately, the 14th has proven to be an almost irresistable invitation to judicial activism for the liberals on the court.
They're evidence of the fact that there are provisions within the [BOR's &] Constitution that restrict state action.
Exactly my point. The BOR's is a list of restrictions on all government, which must be honored as per Art VI.
Like the supremacy clause, it provides absolutely no guide as to what those specific provisions are. Crazy that I should even have to explain this.
Odd, - even amusing, -- that you think your specious remark is a 'explanation'. Both the 10th and Art VI are self explanatory.
----------------------------
You haven't provided any evidence that the Founders did not intend for the BOR to prohibit state action violating individual rights.
Sure did. At #30.
Not at all. At 30 you just elaborated on your circular argument that the States have powers to write law not directly restricted by particular provisions of the constitution, ignoring the BOR's as part of the constitution, on the basis that it was decreed so by the Barron opinion of the USSC.
Want some more evidence to ignore? This is from the Massachusetts ratifying convention, one of several state ratifying conventions which insisted on a bill of rights as a condition for approving the Constitution: "And, as it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth & more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government [emphasis added], The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution:" Source Massachusetts, it should be emphasized, wasn't normally a "states' rights" kind of state. It had a strong manufacturing and merchant base, which naturally tended towards a desire for a central government strong enough to protect their interests. Nonetheless, they weren't interested in the kind of federal power which your interpretation has readily provided for.
Big deal. It's a given that you could find MANY more references to states afraid of fed powers. - That's PART of the reason for the BOR's. -- The main reason was to protect individual rights from ALL government, as proved by the 10th.
Why you WANT states to be able to violate ignore the BOR's is beyond me.
It's beyond me, too, since I never said they should be able to violate people's rights.
Specious, wordgame nitpicking. That you have no constitutional objection with CA gun prohibitions tells the tale.
-------------------------------
'They' [the federal courts] use ANY means possible to abuse their power.
As good a reason as any to leave them with the fewest possible avenues for doing so. Thanks for making my point.
More nonsensical wordplay. Grow up.
-----------------------------
Good grief, now you claim I want to 'keep' "abusive federal power"?
I don't care whether you want to or not. Your interpretation of the Constitution does that job regardless.
That's an infantile lie. As I explained in my last post:
'My' interpretation, that of an original intent to uphold individual rights, fights both fed, state, & local abuses.
--- The absurd 'states rights' position says that rights can be abused by state & local officials despite their oaths to honor & defend our BOR's/Constitution.
I suggest boyo, -- if you can't argue point-counterpoint any further, that you shut up. Playing neener-neener is your pal roscoes silly game.
Wait a minute - didn't you say that this debate wasn't about the scope of federal powers? Because this above statement of yours has it exactly right: They were afraid of federal powers. That's why they didn't invest them with the power to enforce the observance of rights against the states, preferring to leave that job to their own state constitutions and their own state citizens.
They're evidence of the fact that there are provisions within the [BOR's &] Constitution that restrict state action.
Don't intersperse your views when quoting me, and then accuse me of wordplay. I said that the 10th amendment contains evidence that somewhere in the Constitution, there's a prohibition against state action. It doesn't say where any of these prohibitions are located. Unless of course you can find where it does.
Specious, wordgame nitpicking. That you have no constitutional objection with CA gun prohibitions tells the tale.
But of course I do have objections to such prohibitions by the states. But it's not an objection based on the U.S. Constitution. Only a nitpicker would make a big deal out of such a trifle.
More nonsensical wordplay. Grow up.
Wake up. The Constitution limited federal power for a reason. Care to guess why?
That's an infantile lie. As I explained in my last post: 'My' interpretation, that of an original intent to uphold individual rights, fights both fed, state, & local abuses.
We learned during the Great Society era that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Most of us learned, anyway.
I suggest boyo, -- if you can't argue point-counterpoint any further, that you shut up. Playing neener-neener is your pal roscoes silly game.
Translation: "Stop using my arguments against me." Pathetic.
Mostly in Article I, section 10:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Wait a minute - didn't you say that this debate wasn't about the scope of federal powers?
How weird. You wanted to 'limit it', not me.
Because this above statement of yours has it exactly right: They were afraid of federal powers. That's why they didn't invest them with the power to enforce the observance of rights against the states, [neener neener] preferring to leave that job to their own state constitutions and their own state citizens.
Wrong, and made evident by the ratification debates for the 14th, in '68.
They're evidence of the fact that there are provisions within the [BOR's &] Constitution that restrict state action.
Don't intersperse your views when quoting me, and then accuse me of wordplay. I said that the 10th amendment contains evidence that somewhere in the Constitution, there's a prohibition against state action.
Yep, including the BOR's there are others, of course.
It doesn't say where any of these prohibitions are located. Unless of course you can find where it does.
Look them up yourself. Obviously, you need to study the constitution more carefully, in any case.
----------------------------
Specious, wordgame nitpicking. That you have no constitutional objection with CA gun prohibitions tells the tale.
But of course I do have objections to such prohibitions by the states. But it's not an objection based on the U.S. Constitution.
What did I just say? Hilariously confused nitpicking worthy of a roscoe! Funny too..
Only a nitpicker would make a big deal out of such a trifle.
Sorry, But I don't consider GUN prohibitions to be TRIFLES. Un-FReeking-believable...
-----------------------------------
More nonsensical wordplay. Grow up.
Wake up. The Constitution limited federal power for a reason. Care to guess why?
I know why. I don't have to guess, like you.
---------------------------
Your interpretation, bla-bla, bla---
That's an infantile lie. As I explained in my last post: 'My' interpretation, that of an original intent to uphold individual rights, fights both fed, state, & local abuses.
We learned during the Great Society era that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Most of us learned, anyway.
"Neener-neener". - Yes roscoe, of course...
-----------------------------
I suggest boyo, -- if you can't argue point-counterpoint any further, that you shut up. Playing neener-neener is your pal roscoes silly game.
Translation: "Stop using my arguments against me."
Sure thing. -- Pathetic platitudes, as above, - "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
How lame can you get?
How weird. You wanted to 'limit it', not me.
Interesting contrast to our exchange at #36.
Me: "What I'm arguing against is the notion that the federal government has such legitimate powers over the states."
You: "I don't have that notion..."
Because this above statement of yours has it exactly right: They were afraid of federal powers. That's why they didn't invest them with the power to enforce the observance of rights against the states, [neener neener] preferring to leave that job to their own state constitutions and their own state citizens.
Wrong, and made evident by the ratification debates for the 14th, in '68.
Yahh, the debates of 1868 had any bearing whatsoever on the intent of the Founders in 1790. Tell me another one.
Look them up yourself. Obviously, you need to study the constitution more carefully, in any case.
As I suspected. You have no idea what you're talking about. In an alternate universe you might have had me fooled.
Sorry, But I don't consider GUN prohibitions to be TRIFLES.
More proof of your lack of reading comprehension.
Wake up. The Constitution limited federal power for a reason. Care to guess why?
I know why. I don't have to guess, like you.
I see, so you just pretended not to understand why. Very clever.
Pathetic platitudes, as above, - "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Interesting you consider it a pathetic platitude. I thought I was being facetious when I suggested you hadn't learned it, but now it looks like it's true.
He's not good with dates. Dates are facts, after all.
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.