stupid question
Let's just suppose that the state of Michigan passed a law which said that all daily publications produced in that State must be printed on a particular grade of newsprint. Nobody was allowed to print such a publication on anything else, no bond paper, no paper of other colors, only the specified paper.
Assume that the MI Supreme Court upheld this law and it went to US Supreme Court. It would be struck down based on the First Amendment, freedom of the press and free speech which states "Congress shall make no law....." Well if the First Amendment keeps States from abridging the freedom of the press why the heck doesn't the Second keep states from making gun laws?
The obvious answer is, it should, but I still had to ask the question.
Assume that the MI Supreme Court upheld this law and it went to US Supreme Court. It would be struck down based on the First Amendment, freedom of the press and free speech which states "Congress shall make no law....." Well if the First Amendment keeps States from abridging the freedom of the press why the heck doesn't the Second keep states from making gun laws?
The obvious answer is, it should, but I still had to ask the question.
0
-
Henry,
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.0 -
good point henry, but has anyone ever gone to the supreme court ever to argue against the states making their own gun laws?..its not an attemt at a smart a#s question, i would just be interested to know.
not any particular law, just laws in general...in other words has there ever been an attemt to say that the states cant make gun laws?0 -
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Henry,
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.
Do you not agree with the example? Any state or local government that suppresses free speech can be ordered by Federal Court to cease and desist under the authority of the First Amendment. That's why our local courthouse had to remove the 10 commandments from county property - it violated some moron atheist's "right" to separation of church and state under the 1st.
Dan - I don't know but there's a current case against the city of Washington DC making gun laws.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Henry,
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.
Do you not agree with the example? Any state or local government that suppresses free speech can be ordered by Federal Court to cease and desist under the authority of the First Amendment.
The feds are doin it, BUT NOT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. In reality they are doing it in spite of, or in defiance of the first amendment.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by freemind
Henry,
The US constitution protects our rights from the FED's, not the state.
The state constitution (any state) may not be the same.
Do you not agree with the example? Any state or local government that suppresses free speech can be ordered by Federal Court to cease and desist under the authority of the First Amendment. That's why our local courthouse had to remove the 10 commandments from county property - it violated some moron atheist's "right" to separation of church and state under the 1st.
Dan - I don't know but there's a current case against the city of Washington DC making gun laws.
I belive in State's rights. That means to me, that if the state constitution gives no protection of a right (like your example) then it is up to the state citizens to decide. You don't like your state laws, then move to one you like.
I will say this, our bill of rights should also be FIRMLY a part of our state constitution.0 -
The US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, a state that decides to make a law that is in contradiction of a stated law, the state law is negated. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
The US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, a state that decides to make a law that is in contradiction of a stated law, the state law is negated.
This is true-but nothing in the constitution prohibits the states from prohibiting certain types of newsprint, display the ten commandments, or regulate firearm ownership.0 -
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
The US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, a state that decides to make a law that is in contradiction of a stated law, the state law is negated.
This is true-but nothing in the constitution prohibits the states from prohibiting certain types of newsprint, display the ten commandments, or regulate firearm ownership.
That actually is covered in the 14th Amendment, isn't it???
But seriously, the only way to get these types of laws repealed is for people in massive numbers to disregard them, and then be equipped to kill anyone who decides to kill them first, since we already know that they would rather see us dead than in jail.0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
quote:Originally posted by salzo
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
The US Constitution is supposed to be the law of the land. Therefore, a state that decides to make a law that is in contradiction of a stated law, the state law is negated.
This is true-but nothing in the constitution prohibits the states from prohibiting certain types of newsprint, display the ten commandments, or regulate firearm ownership.
That actually is covered in the 14th Amendment, isn't it???
No, it isnt. The 14th amendment does not state that the bill of rights is binding on the states, and that the citizens of the states enjoy the rights specified in the bill of rights. The 14th amendment simply places in the hands of the federal government, the power and authority to decide what rights can and CAN NOT be enjoyed by the people of the states. The 14th amendment essentially destroys the bill of rights. Since its passage, courts have regularly decided what rights are protected, and what isnt, notwithstanding the bill of rights. The 14th amendment has evolved since its inception-some rights protected, then other rights protected, than specific amendments are binding against the states, yet others arent. Then selectively incorporating specific clauses in specific amendments, and negating specific clasues in specific amendments. Then changing their minds, the courts will decide that rights that once were protected, are no longer protected, and vice versa.
The 14th amendment DOES NOT protect the rights contained in the bill of rights. It merely allows the federal government to decide how to deal with rights (including those not specified, ie abortion). The 14th amendment gives the federal government the powers that the constitution strictly forbids it from having-it killed the founders constitution.0 -
Salzo -- X-RING!
I totally agree with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Prior to that amendment, the only intention of the Constitution was to tell the FEDERAL government what it could do, everything else was to be left to the states, even if it violated the Bill of Rights.
After the Civil War, the Northern politicians wanted to insure that things didn't get out of hand again, especially since Lincoln had made it clear that the Union was a BINDING agreement. The 14th Amendment was passed as a feel good amendment to insure that blacks would never be excluded from voting or participating in government.
INSTEAD the courts interpreted that amendment to mean that ALL laws, whether federal, state, or local, were now under the interpretation of the Federal Courts to meet "Constitutional" standards. This was the birth of "legislating from the bench".
As you have correctly pointed out, the courts over the past 140 years have been very selective as to what laws they choose to place under the "Constitutional" test. Certain types of laws are vehemently prosecuted, while others (especially gun laws) are almost completely ignored.
In our current government, the JUDICIAL branch is the most powerful wing of government, which is contrary to the intention of our Founding Fathers.
To quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist #78:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.0 -
I'm a big proponent of federal law over state law. Living in Illinois where anti-gun Democrats rule, I feel my rights as an American citizen are infringed upon Every Freakin Day. The 2nd Amendment states that the rights of a citizen to bear arms is inviolate. Well according to the Illinois State Governor Blowjobovich(spit!) (who sniffs at the anus of Chicago Mayor Daly(SPIT!) firearm ownership is at the leasure of the state.
This state is ruled by anti-gun Democrats that would like nothing better than to see every law-abiding citizen killed by the criminals they empower daily.0 -
Has anyone read the anywhere in either the constitution or the bill of rights, or any legislation, where there is a "right" or guarantee that prohibits the mixing of church and state? First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.(germain part of 1st ammendment concering religion) THAT is what it says........did congress pass a law to put the ten commandments in any courthouse or prayer in schools? I think not, so what you have here is the constructionists trying to fabricate a "modern context" of the 1st ammendment....JUST AS THEY ARE WITH THE 2ND AMMENDMENT... I would go on here, but I am literally afraid of government entities that may be reading these posts.....and I am not paranoid, a nut, or a criminal. I am a family man, father, husband, and follow the law, and do not own or want to own any crazy-illegal firearms or anything else illegal, yet I still fear certain government entities. 0 -
The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). There is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar the regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Whatever rights that may be protected under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say they are not unlimited, much less absolute. In this, we should be wary of what we wish, for we may get much more than we would want. For those that want their rights protected under the Second Amendment, they may soon find that they are only the more "well-regulated." 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pukka Sahib
The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). There is nothing in the Second Amendment that would bar the regulation of the possession, transportation and sale of firearms. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Whatever rights that may be protected under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say they are not unlimited, much less absolute. In this, we should be wary of what we wish, for we may get much more than we would want. For those that want their rights protected under the Second Amendment, they may soon find that they are only the more "well-regulated."
Yet another that does not understand the constitution.
The only thing you said right was the second amendment doesn't gaurentee the RTKABA. God did that, the 2nd only bars congress from passing any laws in regaurds to the RTKABA.0 -
The Constitution does not provide for any God-given rights. Your rights to have a gun are provided by law, and not the Second Amendment. God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world, one need have recourse to the law. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pukka Sahib
The Constitution does not provide for any God-given rights. Your rights to have a gun are provided by law, and not the Second Amendment. God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world, one need have recourse to the law.
Ah I see, so in other words, God's laws and His word are only good in heaven, and we mortals should ignore it until we arrive at heaven?
You also don't understand the bible.
It is funny how the 'net attracts fools and the truely ignorant.
If you knew half as much about history as you *think* you do, you would know that the founders of this country saw our BOR's as GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, and merely were seeking to LIMIT CONGRESS from abridging those RIGHTS.
You are going to have a REAL HARD time, finding someone to take your view of things, in this forum.0 -
The framers of the Constitution did not did not perceive our rights as God-given. The Constitution is based upon secular principles and not religious precepts. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pukka Sahib
The framers of the Constitution did not did not perceive our rights as God-given. The Constitution is based upon secular principles and not religious precepts.
And AGAIN I will tell you, you are wrong. Go back and study history. I don't really know where you get your mis-information, but you need to look at better sources of history.0 -
Where does it say in the Constitution that you have any "God-given" rights? Historically, if there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of our Constitution it is that our government is not based on religion. 0 -
In answer to the original question by Henry, I dont believe the courts have been asked to rule for/against any state.
but the supreme court has agreed to hear arguments in the case of the distric of columbia vs Heller, for the right to own a weapon in the distric which is now banned.0 -
There IS a "mention" of religious beliefs in the Constitution. Open to interpretation, of course.
From the Signature section:
"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America...."
In the fact that it is calling it, the year of our Lord -- "our" being the collective pronoun which implies that it is the Lord, for all who signed it.
Being religious men, the "intent" debate - is - has been - and always will be, debated.
Letters, speeches, actions, etc. following the singing of the Constitution by these men, are available. Many times, reference was made to support their belief in -- religion.
Jefferson, while President of the United States, placed the Bible and the Isaac Watt's hymnal into the public school system as required reading.
"Intent" when writing the Constitution -- debatable.
Specifically written INTO the Constitution -- nope.
But then lawyers will try to twist any word or statement, to fit their agenda.
What is the meaning of -- "is"0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pukka Sahib
Where does it say in the Constitution that you have any "God-given" rights? Historically, if there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of our Constitution it is that our government is not based on religion.
...and...
"The framers of the Constitution did not did not perceive our rights as God-given. The Constitution is based upon secular principles and not religious precepts."
It is important that one put the founding documents into the proper context. To understand the Constitution and how it was formed, one has to view its counterpart, the Declaration of Independence.
It is critical to understand that the 'Natural Law Theory" grounds both the Declaration and the Constitution. The Natural Law is explicit in the Declaration of Independence and to the principals of the US Constitution.
One must first look at the Declaration of Independence and the clear fact that the God-given rights specifically referenced in it are clearly and unarguably established under the Theory/Principal of Natural Law.
The Declaration's language refers to God-given rights specifically. It claims that a God-given right is a separate and equal being and that these God-given rights exist apart from political power. It is clear in the founding documents that God grants "certain unalienable rights" and that government is merely supposed to secure those rights.
It is clear and accepted that the Declaration of Independence contains the philosophical foundations of the Constitution.
As stated by Judge Andrew Napalitano in his excellent book "The Constitution in Exile", "In other words, an understanding of Natural Law, its conferral of rights upon men and women, and the relationship between those rights and the role of government is fundamental to understand and interpret the Constitution properly."
So, long story short and put into context, it is clear that the Constitution is grounded in the belief of "God-given" and "unalienable" rights.0 -
That is not correct.
1. The Anno Domini ("In the year of the Lord") was the method of dating formal documents adopted following the conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. It appears in the subscription and not the body of the Constitution, and it signifies nothing but the date.
2. The Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson's ideas about rights expressed therein were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the sovereign power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.
3. There is no "Natural Law." All rights are the creation of law. As Bentham put it: "[N]atural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,- nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pukka Sahib
That is not correct.
1. The Anno Domini ("In the year of the Lord") was the method of dating formal documents adopted following the conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. It appears in the subscription and not the body of the Constitution, and it signifies nothing but the date.
2. The Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson's ideas about rights expressed therein were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the sovereign power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.
3. There is no "Natural Law." All rights are the creation of law. As Bentham put it: "[N]atural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,- nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
Wrong.
I don't know about you, but I have the RTKBA, the right to defend myself, the right to earn and to provide for myself and/or my family, the right to freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to do many things.....AND....it didn't require a government to pass laws to provide these and many, many other of my "Natural Rights"...they are mine already, God-given if you will.[;)]0 -
No, you are wrong - dead wrong. 0 -
Come and get them, Pukka.
Plain enough for you ?
We only represent 3 % of the population. Should be a cake-walk for you and the Beast.0 -
The idea of so-called "natural rights" is paradoxical. See Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789); also, Anarchical Fallacies (1816). Real rights don't exist in a vacuum; but only within the framework of established social structure subject to the rule of law. It is the law that defines our rights, in the absence of which rights would be no more than a scrambling possession with but little likelihood of lasting beyond the next to challenge the claim by force. How much greater are rights in society, and the more so for their guaranty by the social contract that is our Constitution. No, the law is the only means by which real rights may be secured. Beyond the law lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). 0 -
You write like you are very well educated ..as expected.
Ever read the simple words....
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...?
See ..the difference between us commoners, and people like you is simple.
You can bend words at will to advance your agenda. Make `em mean whatever you will, today.and something different tomorrow.
See..the other thing is..you have to convince the 3% of us that still uphold the Constitution that you make sense.
Don't believe that you make the grade either.just as your henchmen, both here on the forum, and those in the government, media, and big business haven't either.0 -
Isn't this another poster from recent past with a different screen name?
Thought they banned you?0 -
quote:Isn't this another poster from recent past with a different screen name?[:D] 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
37 comments