Of course I specified. The point is that general prohibitions in the Constitution, that don't mention states, apply against the federal government only. Those items I mentioned are evidence in support of that point. Ignore them if you like, but there they stand.
Very well then, your entire point is made mute by the 14th amendment, which 'mentions' that States must observe individual rights to life, liberty or property.
------------------------------
The 'feds' have no power over states except that delegated.
They have the power to enforce the Constitution.
Yep, sure do. Although below, you again insist they can't enforce individual rights to property. Weird dichotomy:
"the federal courts aren't constitutionally empowered to protect gun rights from your state government"
Which way would you have it?
If your position is true, that the Bill of Rights is binding upon the states, then the "feds" have the power to enforce it. My position is that the Founders didn't intend for it to be binding on the states, so therefore the federal government would be without power to enforce something that was intended to only apply to themselves.
Circular reasoning again? The protection of individual rights were VERY important to the founders, and they certainly were not naive enough to believe that state governments couldn't abuse them. The BOR's applies to states, just as it says in the 10th.
So yes, this dispute is about the proper extent of federal power.
It shouldn't be, because I agree the feds abuse our constitution, more so than the states.
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.
That's no different from you blaming Barron vs. Baltimore for the people's failure, in your state, to respect gun rights.
Odd comment. -- I don't 'blame' B v B. - I blame the communitarians in power, and some of their 'states rights' so-called-conservative allies, who passed these insane bills.
Yes, the states and the people are failing to resist federal encroachment. The question is, Is the current interpretation of the Constitution part of the solution, or part of the problem? Seems clearly part of the problem to me.
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.
The only thing I've tried to convince you of is that the federal courts aren't constitutionally empowered to protect gun rights from your state government. That's up to the people of your state.
You said just above:
"They have the power to enforce the Constitution."
I suggest you rethink your position.
You're making the assumption that because I say they have the power to enforce the Constitution, I must be saying they have the power to enforce your interpretation of it. Why would you make such an assumption?
The protection of individual rights were VERY important to the founders, and they certainly were not naive enough to believe that state governments couldn't abuse them.
Hmm. I guess that explains why they never bothered to include a bill of rights in the Articles of Confederation, or in the original draft of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was passed at the insistence of the anti-federalists - you know, the "states' rights" crowd.
The BOR's applies to states, just as it says in the 10th.
The 10th amendment says absolutely no such thing.
It shouldn't be, because I agree the feds abuse our constitution, more so than the states.
And if the Barron precedent had been followed, federal abuse of the Constitution would have been significantly curtailed.
I don't 'blame' B v B. - I blame the communitarians in power, and some of their 'states rights' so-called-conservative allies, who passed these insane bills.
But it was the Barron precedent which, in your view, enabled these people to get away with it, is that right? Similarly, I said, "Yes, the states and the people are failing to resist federal encroachment. The question is, Is the current interpretation of the Constitution part of the solution, or part of the problem? Seems clearly part of the problem to me." You quoted me but didn't respond.