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.
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?
Because nothing else is logical? Look, you have the odd interpretation of our constitution, not me. -- Why? I don't know.
----------------------------
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.
How backwards. The 'states rights' crowd want to be able to ignore individual rights, and always have. -- Nope, -- The BOR's were passed to insure that all levels of government protected individual rights to life, liberty, and property, enumerated or not.
---------------------------
The BOR's applies to states, just as it says in the 10th.
The 10th amendment says absolutely no such thing.
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.
-----------------------------
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.
By who? States taking away gun rights from ex-slaves in 1868? -- Daft.
----------------------------
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?
B v B is a minor one of their ploys. The Milita clause seems to be the hot cite for prohibiting 'assault' weapons.
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.
Of course I didn't respond. It's a rhetorical 'question', that in effect just restates your position. -- Whats to say?