Free Republic

The enforcement of such laws are, IMO, felonies:

Well put. Bump.

The enforcement of such laws are, IMO, felonies:

Well put. Bump.

Professor Barnett writes:

Is Originalism Crossing Over?
Next week, I will be giving my talk on “Was Lochner Right? Natural Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment” at Georgetown Law on Tuesday at noon and at GMU Law on Thursday at 5pm.
In my talk, I explain the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its connection to the Ninth Amendment.
In response, people are very curious as to whether whether I think there is any chance for a revival of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Supreme Court. My answer is that we stand poised on the threshold of a possible shift when the constitutionality of state restrictions of the right to keep and bear arms is confronted by the Court in the wake of DC v. Heller. The evidence is overwhelming that the Privileges or Immunities of Citizens of the United States included a personal right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the evidence that the right protected by the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment was personal and individual is even stronger and less impeachable than it is with the Second Amendment. And all the historical evidence concerning a right to keep and bear arms that exists concerns the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not the Due Process Clause.

Bold words that challenge the 'conventional wisdom' that States can restrict our individual rights by using 'reasonable law'.. Indeed, our rights to life, liberty or property, -- protected by the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment are personal and individual, and cannot be infringed upon for 'the common good'.

At some point, credit became a much easier way of paying loans off and using it as a way to start comfortably off after graduation.

At some point, it became fashionable to believe that people could pay interest of 12% -or more-, and that other people could 'make' money or 'make a living' by loaning money [risk free] to the greater fool..

Usury is not a viable business.

Randy Barnett wrote the above quoted article..

.

The term states' rights is not in the Constitution, nor is it appropriate in to use at all in reference to a society in which rights of private citizens are divinely endowed. Therefore, according to the founding documents, only humans and private entities have rights, and government at any level has no rights, but has only those powers ceded to it by the governed. The appropriate term is states' powers.

bamahead: --you could term it that the 'states' as ... individual entities has [sic] certain rights, which cannot be trounced upon per Amendment X.

No, I think there is an important difference between the words "rights" and "powers." Amendment X reserves powers "to the States respectively, or to the people." It does not use the word "rights" in connection with the states. "State's Rights" is and has been pure political jargon, not a constitutional principle.

Well, and precisely put, justiceseeker..
States cannot write laws, nor can their constitutions violate our individual rights to "life, liberty or property, without due process of law"..

Moreover, it makes no difference at all if we are 'divinely' endowed. -- Our rights are self evident and inalienable, regardless of who we see as our creator.

I understand this:
Taking away a person’s RKBA for a non-violent act is an unconstitutional infringement, and the judicial pretense about being "narrowly defined" is a simple effort to 'end around' a basic right.

Your inability to deny the above fact is what's 'obvious'.

This is nothing to worry about. Totally a technical law decision, and a minor one at that.
This was not a Second Amendment case. The 2nd had nothing to do with this case.

Bull.. Thousands of people with minor domestic squabbles will lose their 2nd amendment rights. -- this is not a 'minor' matter..

You misunderstand. The title is very deceiving.
This case was not about the 2nd amendment. Read the decision - the 2nd isn’t even mentioned. There were no arguments about whether or not taking away the RKBA of a person convicted of a misdemeanor is constitutional or not. That would be about the 2nd and I look forward to such a case, but it’s not what this case was about.
The whole point of this case was that Hayes was challenging his losing his RKBA based off of not having been charged and convicted with a domestic violence crime. Rather he was convicted of simple battery. That’s the point - the law says “domestic violence” and his charge said “battery.” That was the entire point of the case, and the only thing contested.
Ginsberg basically said “You were convicted of beating up your wife. That’s a crime of domestic violence regardless of what the city called the charges against you.” And I agree with her.

You admit that "-- The whole point of this case was that Hayes was challenging his losing his RKBA," -- And that, -- " Ginsberg basically said “You were convicted of beating up your wife. That’s a crime of domestic violence regardless of what the city called the charges against you” [ thus you can lose your RKBA - my paraphrase]..

And I agree with her.

So, you agree with her that his 'crime' can result in a loss of his RKBA. That 'agreement' also means that thousands of people with minor domestic squabbles will lose their 2nd amendment rights. -- this is not a 'minor' matter..

I happen to strongly disagree with her that taking away someone’s RKBA for a misdemeanor is not unconstitutional. Personally, I think taking away a person’s RKBA for a non-violent felony is unconstitutional, but that’s another matter.

No , its not "another matter". Taking away a person’s RKBA for a non-violent act is an unconstitutional infringement, and the judicial pretense about being "narrowly defined" is a simple effort to 'end around' a basic right.

This case was very narrowly defined and decided, and had nothing to do with the constitutionality of taking away someone’s RKBA for a misdemeanor. It wasn’t about the Second Amendmend.

Dream on. Your RKBA's is dying the death of a thousand cuts, while we allow the courts to play word games..

apparently Alito and Thomas voted with the majority here.

They will live to regret their political, unconstitutional actions.

This is nothing to worry about. Totally a technical law decision, and a minor one at that.
This was not a Second Amendment case. The 2nd had nothing to do with this case.

Bull.. Thousands of people with minor domestic squabbles will lose their 2nd amendment rights. -- this is not a 'minor' matter..

I am not in objection to your goals - a citizenry that understands the brilliance and importance of our Constitution. I object to your approach and the involvement of whoever happens to be in control of the government at the time that such training occurs.

Straw man that my 'approach' allows such political control.

Again, since you skipped it last time - what if Clark was in charge of the training?

Again.. -- Do you really think that constitutional training/education within our military establishment is influenced by " -- whoever happens to be in control of the government."
Get real.

Maybe you should. When, ever, has granting power to the federal government regarding educating our children been a good idea. Get real in deed.

Passing a amendment to qualify voters is not "granting power" to the feds. You really can't debate without using the 'straw man' technique, can you..

I'm trying. But I am also trying to reconcile your thoughts that only those who serve should have the right to vote. Does that only apply to military service? Does it apply to civil servants - they are in effect serving, just not in the armed services.

It applies to those who volunteer at 18 -- to attend a 'boot camp' on our constitutional principles, agreeing to support and defend those principles.

Maybe I just fundamental can't reconcile your position on the issue with my understanding of how our nation was founded.

Why do you argue that 'my position' is at odds with how our nation was founded? -- Do you have any concept of how silly you make yourself look by using such tar-baby tactics?

Because it is direct conflict with the Constitution as it currently stands.

Silly comment, seeing that I'm proposing changing our constitution, - about voting..

I believe that our nation would be better off under a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution.

So do I.

Tinkering around with it, voting rights, etc., just comes off to me as one more attempt to fix or improve on a fundamental document that doesn't need fixing - just enforced. Agree to disagree?

Sorry' no sale. - Your effort to claim that I'm 'tinkering' is a disagreeable method..

Then we will agree to be disagreeable - fine by me. You want boot camps to qualify for citizenship or the right to vote - then do the things necessary to get that into the Constitution and I will then agree with you.

My proposal is part of "the things necessary to get that into the Constitution".. Read much?

Absent that, your idea is not in line with the Constitution, at least my opinion of it. Maybe in the world of a "living" Constitution where it is open to interpretation of the day, but unless you formally amend it, your boot camps as a qualifier are not Constitutional. Good Luck.

You seem stuck with the 'straw man' that I'm opposed to amending the constitution.. -- Get over it..

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, "through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law."
~snip~

Huh? Can anybody help me out here with this "supremacy clause" legalese?

Our Constitution is the supreme "Law of the Land", and all officials in the USA are bound by oath to support/defend it, - the " Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"..

Parse this for me. It seems a little, uh, troublesome to one interested in the sovereignty of the people AND the states:
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

No 'parsing' needed. The kicker is -- so long as a federal statute is constitutional, -- and of course, many are not, and no local, state or fed official is bound by unconstitutional statutes..

The 10th Amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, doesn’t grant rights; it recognizes them and denies local, state and federal government the power to violate said rights.

It denies a lot more to the federal government than to the state and local governments.

The fact remains, -- no one can constitutionally speaking, deny you your rights to life, liberty or property, -- unless you lose them in a court after due process of constitutionally valid law..

The States’ rights were not “granted” by the Constitution. The People delegated limited authority to the federal government through the written Constitution. The People also delegated separate authority to their individual State. The People also retained individual rights from government - many of these are reflected in the Bill of Rights.

Well said..
It should also be noted that the "delegated separate authority to their individual State", cannot authorizer a local or state gov't to deny people their rights to life, liberty or property, without due process of [constitutional] law.

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, "through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law."

~snip~

Huh? Can anybody help me out here with this "supremacy clause" legalese?

Our Constitution is the supreme "Law of the Land", and all officials in the USA are bound by oath to support/defend it, - the " Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"..

The 10th Amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, doesn’t grant rights; it recognizes them and denies the federal government the power to violate said rights.

The 10th Amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, doesn’t grant rights; it recognizes them and denies local, state and federal government the power to violate said rights.

The Constitution does not grant the States any rights. They had them before the Constitution and the federal government existed.

The Constitution does not grant the States any rights, since only people have rights. -- People had them before the Constitution and the federal government existed and people can only grant powers to local, state and federal gov'ts..

I am not in objection to your goals - a citizenry that understands the brilliance and importance of our Constitution.
I object to your approach and the involvement of whoever happens to be in control of the government at the time that such training occurs.

Straw man that my 'approach' allows such political control.
Do you really think that constitutional training/education within our military establishment is influenced by " -- whoever happens to be in control of the government."
Get real.

I'm trying. But I am also trying to reconcile your thoughts that only those who serve should have the right to vote. Does that only apply to military service? Does it apply to civil servants - they are in effect serving, just not in the armed services.

It applies to those who volunteer at 18 -- to attend a 'boot camp' on our constitutional principles, agreeing to support and defend those principles.

Maybe I just fundamental can't reconcile your position on the issue with my understanding of how our nation was founded.

Why do you argue that 'my position' is at odds with how our nation was founded? -- Do you have any concept of how silly you make yourself look by using such tar-baby tactics?

I believe that our nation would be better off under a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution.

So do I.

Tinkering around with it, voting rights, etc., just comes off to me as one more attempt to fix or improve on a fundamental document that doesn't need fixing - just enforced. Agree to disagree?

Sorry' no sale. - Your effort to claim that I'm 'tinkering' is a disagreeable method..

I'm guessing eminent domain???

I'm more concerned with States that ignore our RKBA's.