Trump - a Constitutional problem
Trump has said that as president he would sue Newspapers that write negatively about him... 1st amendment be damned.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Hillary wins! Now if the protestors, 12 million of them wanted Cruz but protested, give Trump thier votes,
Hillary - 63,000,000
Trump - 65,000,000
3rd party - 12,000,000
Trump wins!
See how voting 3rd party can and will get hillary elected? Remember Perot?
I wondered when someone was going to point this out. Doubt third part votes will go 50/50. Might also add: the topic ORIGINALLY was about folks saying they WOULD NOT VOTE, on this board they would be "REPUBLICANS"
Oh, I see so we can just use whatever imaginary numbers we want and a point is made? Those are the rules now? Ok. Well, here have at it:
Vote tallies:
Hillary -- 100.5
Trump ---3.14159
3rd Party 5,000,000,000
Draw your own conclusions.0 -
quote:Originally posted by popgun
quote:
The Democrats HAVE to be whipped. A 3rd party candidate is not going to do it.
My greatest fear is that if Trump loses the nomination he will run as a third party candidate, even though he swore he wouldn't.
And how much support has he gotten from the "good old jackass Republican party? Zilch!
The "establishment" wants us to elect their choice, not ours.
Is everyone too blind to see it?0 -
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Hillary wins! Now if the protestors, 12 million of them wanted Cruz but protested, give Trump thier votes,
Hillary - 63,000,000
Trump - 65,000,000
3rd party - 12,000,000
Trump wins!
See how voting 3rd party can and will get hillary elected? Remember Perot?
I wondered when someone was going to point this out. Doubt third part votes will go 50/50. Might also add: the topic ORIGINALLY was about folks saying they WOULD NOT VOTE, on this board they would be "REPUBLICANS"
It is so simple to see right?
Those numbers are purely hypothetical and were used only for demonstration purposes.
3rd party has no chance, it is a wet erotic dream to think otherwise. Untill the nation makes the move 3rd party voting in a presidential election is a protest vote.
If the republicans do not like thier nominee they protest vote, taking away from the republican party. Taking away enough votes causes the republican party to lose.
If you vote 3rd party or do not vote at all you are helping the dems win. A more simple way to put it is take all the votes, democrat and republican voters vote for thier candidate. At the end of the day the biggest turnout wins. Now since the biggest protest voters are or were registered republicans who causes the most damage by protesting? Republicans.
Remeber Perot? All the dreamers pretty much made sure Clinton won. Now if it had a 2 party election the outcome may have been much much different.
Untill you see a 3rd party candidate come out and win over the masses it aint gonna happen, dream all you want IT AINT HAPPENIN!
I hope you like 8 more years of democrat control. If you vote 3rd party or refuse to vote you help the democrat.0 -
Quote:
Oh, I see so we can just use whatever imaginary numbers we want and a point is made? Those are the rules now? Ok. Well, here have at it:
Vote tallies:
Hillary -- 100.5
Trump ---3.14159
3rd Party 5,000,000,000
Draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion is: Hillary in NO WAY has a temperature that high no more that 96.2 and that's a hot day.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Hillary wins! Now if the protestors, 12 million of them wanted Cruz but protested, give Trump thier votes,
Hillary - 63,000,000
Trump - 65,000,000
3rd party - 12,000,000
Trump wins!
See how voting 3rd party can and will get hillary elected? Remember Perot?
I wondered when someone was going to point this out. Doubt third part votes will go 50/50. Might also add: the topic ORIGINALLY was about folks saying they WOULD NOT VOTE, on this board they would be "REPUBLICANS"
It is so simple to see right?
Those numbers are purely hypothetical and were used only for demonstration purposes.
3rd party has no chance, it is a wet erotic dream to think otherwise. Untill the nation makes the move 3rd party voting in a presidential election is a protest vote.
If the republicans do not like thier nominee they protest vote, taking away from the republican party. Taking away enough votes causes the republican party to lose.
If you vote 3rd party or do not vote at all you are helping the dems win. A more simple way to put it is take all the votes, democrat and republican voters vote for thier candidate. At the end of the day the biggest turnout wins. Now since the biggest protest voters are or were registered republicans who causes the most damage by protesting? Republicans.
Remeber Perot? All the dreamers pretty much made sure Clinton won. Now if it had a 2 party election the outcome may have been much much different.
Untill you see a 3rd party candidate come out and win over the masses it aint gonna happen, dream all you want IT AINT HAPPENIN!
I hope you like 8 more years of democrat control. If you vote 3rd party or refuse to vote you help the democrat.
Please share for us all the research you have done to show that third party votes only come from the GOP. Thanks in advance.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Hillary wins! Now if the protestors, 12 million of them wanted Cruz but protested, give Trump thier votes,
Hillary - 63,000,000
Trump - 65,000,000
3rd party - 12,000,000
Trump wins!
See how voting 3rd party can and will get hillary elected? Remember Perot?
I wondered when someone was going to point this out. Doubt third part votes will go 50/50. Might also add: the topic ORIGINALLY was about folks saying they WOULD NOT VOTE, on this board they would be "REPUBLICANS"
It is so simple to see right?
Those numbers are purely hypothetical and were used only for demonstration purposes.
3rd party has no chance, it is a wet erotic dream to think otherwise. Untill the nation makes the move 3rd party voting in a presidential election is a protest vote.
If the republicans do not like thier nominee they protest vote, taking away from the republican party. Taking away enough votes causes the republican party to lose.
If you vote 3rd party or do not vote at all you are helping the dems win. A more simple way to put it is take all the votes, democrat and republican voters vote for thier candidate. At the end of the day the biggest turnout wins. Now since the biggest protest voters are or were registered republicans who causes the most damage by protesting? Republicans.
Remeber Perot? All the dreamers pretty much made sure Clinton won. Now if it had a 2 party election the outcome may have been much much different.
Untill you see a 3rd party candidate come out and win over the masses it aint gonna happen, dream all you want IT AINT HAPPENIN!
I hope you like 8 more years of democrat control. If you vote 3rd party or refuse to vote you help the democrat.
Please share for us all the research you have done to show that third party votes only come from the GOP. Thanks in advance.
Tell me how I said ONLY?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Big Sky Redneck
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Hillary wins! Now if the protestors, 12 million of them wanted Cruz but protested, give Trump thier votes,
Hillary - 63,000,000
Trump - 65,000,000
3rd party - 12,000,000
Trump wins!
See how voting 3rd party can and will get hillary elected? Remember Perot?
I wondered when someone was going to point this out. Doubt third part votes will go 50/50. Might also add: the topic ORIGINALLY was about folks saying they WOULD NOT VOTE, on this board they would be "REPUBLICANS"
It is so simple to see right?
Those numbers are purely hypothetical and were used only for demonstration purposes.
3rd party has no chance, it is a wet erotic dream to think otherwise. Untill the nation makes the move 3rd party voting in a presidential election is a protest vote.
If the republicans do not like thier nominee they protest vote, taking away from the republican party. Taking away enough votes causes the republican party to lose.
If you vote 3rd party or do not vote at all you are helping the dems win. A more simple way to put it is take all the votes, democrat and republican voters vote for thier candidate. At the end of the day the biggest turnout wins. Now since the biggest protest voters are or were registered republicans who causes the most damage by protesting? Republicans.
Remeber Perot? All the dreamers pretty much made sure Clinton won. Now if it had a 2 party election the outcome may have been much much different.
Untill you see a 3rd party candidate come out and win over the masses it aint gonna happen, dream all you want IT AINT HAPPENIN!
I hope you like 8 more years of democrat control. If you vote 3rd party or refuse to vote you help the democrat.
Please share for us all the research you have done to show that third party votes only come from the GOP. Thanks in advance.
Tell me how I said ONLY?
Only... primarily... hell even one voter over half.0 -
Trump = pi? That's circular logic if I ever saw any. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Trump = pi? That's circular logic if I ever saw any.
That was meant to represent the circle jerk that Trump supporters engage in.0 -
Just get together with all the media and washington insiders and knock Trump out of it. Then we can all look forward to 8 more years of Clintons in the White House along with all their crimes, scandals, and corruption. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by truthful
Just get together with all the media and washington insiders and knock Trump out of it. Then we can all look forward to 8 more years of Clintons in the White House along with all their crimes, scandals, and corruption.
Since there are still other candidates in the running who stand an even better chance at beating Hillary than Trump does, well frankly, your post makes no sense whatsoever.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
You are correct.
We should vote for Hillary because we know where she stands and can count on her.
Or, one could back Cruz whose history demonstrates a consistent support of the Constitution. Your choice.
problem with cruz is he plans on taxing employers more then they are already paying which causes them to cut or not fill jobs along with moving to a friendlier country so I don't recommend voting for him unless you are one of those people that don't need to work.0 -
Trump is the only one not owned by special interests...
That is why the establishment is now coming out so hard against him.[8]0 -
quote:Originally posted by pip5255
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
You are correct.
We should vote for Hillary because we know where she stands and can count on her.
Or, one could back Cruz whose history demonstrates a consistent support of the Constitution. Your choice.
problem with cruz is he plans on taxing employers more then they are already paying which causes them to cut or not fill jobs along with moving to a friendlier country so I don't recommend voting for him unless you are one of those people that don't need to work.
Interesting, your argument is the exact opposite of the one proffered by the other here who boisterously opposes Cruz's BTT.
And it turns out neither of you are correct, but for different reasons. The BTT Cruz proposes levies a tax on business that is, in effect, the same rate as they presently pay. However it is calculated in a far less complicated way. Ultimately, that results in a net savings by any accounting. In the off chance you care to investigate further: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan0 -
quote:Originally posted by wpage
Trump is the only one not owned by special interests...
That is why the establishment is now coming out so hard against him.[8]
The tinfoil hatters seem to be gaining members by the day. First, to suggest that Trump is immune to special interest is naive at best. Second, Occam's razor suggests the main reason the establishment republicans don't like Trump is simply that his record on policies is counter to those maintained by the bulk of the party (i.e. he's been a lifelong Democrat). Couple that with his cavalier attitude regarding his use of words and promised use of the bully pulpit, it's clear that they simply see him as a dangerous demagogue.0 -
On the 15th I will vote for Cruze. I hope he is the candidate,
but if he is not, I will vote for anyone running against Clinton.
It seems there are those here who have no confidence in what
Trump says. I do however have total confidence in what Clinton says,
and truly hope she never gets the opportunity to keep her word.
She may be a liar about much, but it's what she's not lying about
that scares the hell out of me.0 -
Hear is the problem that I hear from everyone. People are just tired of career politicians, that vote with other peoples wallets in mind. Yes, we all hate Trump and Hillary and want Cruz to win, but it is not going to happen. Either one of these two jerks will win and were screwed either way. Do you really trust any of the candidates??????Not me, but I will not vote for Hillary. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Trump = pi? That's circular logic if I ever saw any.
That was meant to represent the circle jerk that Trump supporters engage in.
[;)][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Trump has said that as president he would sue Newspapers that write negatively about him... 1st amendment be damned.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
0 -
Take away Cruz's 99 Delegates he got in Texas and he is not even in the race. What is going to happen when he hits the northern states. I don't know what kind of President Trump will make, but I believe it is going to happen. Iw ill vote for him over Hillary. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jltrent
Take away Cruz's 99 Delegates he got in Texas and he is not even in the race. What is going to happen when he hits the northern states. I don't know what kind of President Trump will make, but I believe it is going to happen. Iw ill vote for him over Hillary.
I'm sure certain Texans will be happy to hear of your support for their secession movement.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 1911a1-fan
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Trump has said that as president he would sue Newspapers that write negatively about him... 1st amendment be damned.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
With due respect, Dan, perhaps it is you that should wake up and investigate Trump's past.0 -
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Yes, it would. First of all, there is no constitutional right that guarantees no infringement by the government to driving a car on public roadways or otherwise. So just stop with the sophistry.
Second of all, as I have pointed out numerous times before, the "I get to carry a gun" permission slip that requires folks to beg and plead for the right to be armed is unconstitutional at the state level. Please explain for me how creating a FEDERAL carry permit is any less unconstitutional?
To the thinking mind it's even worse.
Consider this: in at least two states NO beg and plead permission slip is necessary. Will the FEDERAL system simply adopt that nationwide? If you believe so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is where the problem arises, Joe.
It is not necessarily a Constitutional problem if the Federal Government simply forces states to accept the permits of the other states. The problem will be that states with restrictive permitting processes will object to having to let citizens of Vermont walk their streets without a permit. Or, do we now force citizens of Vermont to go through a permitting process?
We know the answer to this, and it will be (just like driver's licenses) that the Federal Government will establish minimum standards for the issuance of a permit by the states. At that point, we do have a Constitutional issue in that it will be the Federal Government creating a power for itself not delegated by the Constitution. Then, the only Constitutional action possible by the Federal Government would be to impose the acceptance of true (permit-less) Constitutional Carry upon all of the States.
So, while superficially this Universal Carry Permit Statue does not seem to have Constitutional issues, the application of such a law has about a 99.9% chance of creating one.0 -
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
Your post leaves me wondering: are you even remotely aware that each state has its own constitution? Even remotely aware?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
Don, that is an excellent point. The BOR was intended to apply to the states, but as history bears out, it has not fully been so for various reasons. Regardless, each and every state constitution includes all of the enumerated rights codified in the US Constitution and in some cases the states are even more explicit in how they are codified and more strict in how the state is to govern their citizens. To be ignorant of that fact as tallcharlie seems to be is mystifying to me, but ultimately it's unsurprising.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
You are wrong. The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
97 comments