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.