Are you reading the same post I am? I did indeed argue "the States have powers to write law not directly restricted by particular provisions of the constitution" but it was most certainly not "on the basis that it was decreed so by the Barron opinion of the USSC." It was on the basis of the language contained in Sections 9 and 10 of Article I, on the basis of the preamble to the Bill of Rights, and on the basis of Madison's language when he was proposing an early draft of the Bill of Rights.
What possible political advantage is gained by agreeing that states can ignore our individual rights?
I wouldn't agree to that. I always insist that states should respect our rights. What I'm arguing against is the notion that the federal government has such legitimate powers over the states. Consider what happens, for example, when the high court makes rulings such as those which prohibit graduation speakers from issuing prayers, but allow them to give sermons about the need for more school funding, or about promoting "diversity" or other such drivel. Does this contribute to a greater appreciation for liberty? Does it cultivate an affection for small government or individual freedom? Most certainly not. What it does do is weaken people's resistance to federal authority. It does absolutely nothing else.
And if you want RKBA respected in California, it's not going to happen by petitioning the federal courts. They're not interested in gun rights. Your best bet is to put your efforts into fighting for it locally. Ultimately, the only way rights are going to be respected is if a certain critical mass of the population is educated about them.
Are you reading the same post I am? I did indeed argue "the States have powers to write law not directly restricted by particular provisions of the constitution" but it was most certainly not "on the basis that it was decreed so by the Barron opinion of the USSC."
It was on the basis of the language contained in Sections 9 and 10 of Article I, on the basis of the preamble to the Bill of Rights, and on the basis of Madison's language when he was proposing an early draft of the Bill of Rights.
Merely making a statement that those items are the basis of your argument, -- is not an argument. I have no idea what your percise point may be. You never specified.
----------------------------
What possible political advantage is gained by agreeing that states can ignore our individual rights?
I wouldn't agree to that. I always insist that states should respect our rights. What I'm arguing against is the notion that the federal government has such legitimate powers over the states.
I don't have that notion, while you seem to have one that equates the feds with our constitution. [The 'feds' have no power over states except that delegated. -- AND. -- The 'states' have no power over feds except that delegated.] --- They are supposed to check and balance. -- Get it?
Consider what happens, for example, when the high court makes rulings such as those which prohibit graduation speakers from issuing prayers, but allow them to give sermons about the need for more school funding, or about promoting "diversity" or other such drivel. Does this contribute to a greater appreciation for liberty? Does it cultivate an affection for small government or individual freedom? Most certainly not. What it does do is weaken people's resistance to federal authority. It does absolutely nothing else.
By not fighting the USSC on these 'rulings', the States are failing in their constitutional obligations to the people. -- You are blaming our Constitution for the 'peoples' political failures.
And if you want RKBA respected in California, it's not going to happen by petitioning the federal courts. They're not interested in gun rights. Your best bet is to put your efforts into fighting for it locally. Ultimately, the only way rights are going to be respected is if a certain critical mass of the population is educated about them.
Gee, I never thought of that. --- Yet you've spent a good amount of time, trying to 'educate' me in the supposed fact that CA is not obligated to honor the 2nd amendment.
-- Go figure, - Because I can't.