Lots, - but their support for the CA prohibitions on 'assault weapons' gets me the most. There are dozens of self described conservatives on FR who ~insist~ that CA has a 'right' to so 'regulate' guns.
Seems as though you're lumping a large body of diverse political opinion and philosophy under the name of states' rights-ers.
My understanding of the phrase all powerful state in tpaine's original statement was a reference to the federal government. That is almost always the context in which that phrase is used. The organizational structure of our republic prevents it's use in reference to state government, as those opposed could just vote with their feet (oddly, this was tried once at the federal level - and as a result we all find ourselves here today)!
I was taken aback when later it was explained that all powerful state was not in reference to federal power. The notion of an all powerful government at the state level is not reasonable, as certain powers are delegated away from the states by our federal constitution.
-- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state. Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it... -tpaine 135
States' rights advocates are not alone in their opinion that the BOR applies limits only to federal power. There are many who believe this, and they are not totally unjustified - that is to say, I have not seen a convincing argument that the opposite is true. The BOR is, after all, amending a document ordained and established for the United States of America.
Much additional contrary evidence exists. To continue your example, 46 states (I believe that # is correct still) have explicit protection of the RKBA in their own state constititions. It is evident that such a clause could have been included in the original 13, had they been established and ratified prior to the appendage of the BOR to the constitution, but how to explain the others when there is an explicit constitutional clause forbidding them to act?
Are you suggesting the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. enumerated in the Bill of Rights does not apply at the state level? That the state government can put limits on these freedoms, and only the federal government cannot?
How many state constitutions even have these rights enumerated?
Seems as though you're lumping a large body of diverse political opinion and philosophy under the name of states' rights-ers.
So what? Percisely ~why~ each one insists that a state should be able to ignore the BOR's doesn't matter. They threaten our republics foundation with their actions.
My understanding of the phrase all powerful state in tpaine's original statement was a reference to the federal government. That is almost always the context in which that phrase is used.
It matters little to me which level of government takes away our RKBA's.
The organizational structure of our republic prevents it's use in reference to state government, as those opposed could just vote with their feet (oddly, this was tried once at the federal level - and as a result we all find ourselves here today)!
Why should a Californian have to move to Nevada to own an "assault weapon"? -- Makes no constitutional sense.
I was taken aback when later it was explained that all powerful state was not in reference to federal power.
The notion of an all powerful government at the state level is not reasonable, as certain powers are delegated away from the states by our federal constitution.
Exactly my point.. A state cannot ignore our U.S. Constitutions basic principles.
-- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state.
Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it... -tpaine 135
States' rights advocates are not alone in their opinion that the BOR applies limits only to federal power. There are many who believe this, and they are not totally unjustified - that is to say, I have not seen a convincing argument that the opposite is true. The BOR is, after all, amending a document ordained and established for the United States of America.
Yep, sure is. - Which makes my point. All states are bound thereby. [Art VI]
Much additional contrary evidence exists. To continue your example, 46 states (I believe that # is correct still) have explicit protection of the RKBA in their own state constititions. It is evident that such a clause could have been included in the original 13, had they been established and ratified prior to the appendage of the BOR to the constitution, but how to explain the others when there is an explicit constitutional clause forbidding them to act?
Why do state constitutions need explaining? Sure, they are at times redundant when it comes to enumerating our individual rights. --- Better repetitions than the 'legal' mess made because the 48'ers forgot to put a 2nd amendment type clause in CA's..