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?
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.