Should Texas Take a Stand on the 2nd Ammendment? (Houston: felons, school)

[doctorjef]

Originally Posted by lonestar2007

I do realize that we've lost much privacy and convenience due to the terrorist attacks and I am as sorry about this as anyone. I realize we have lost some personal freedoms there and I regret it.

I also realize I entered the mention of history and the other countries, but only as a broad viewpoint and food for thought, not to be scrutinized on a one by one basis.

In keeping with the intentions of this thread ( Should Texas Take a Stand on the 2nd Amendment?) in the Texas forum, I respectfully say yes, we Texans should take a stand. The line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

In what action would drawing a line in the sand consist? Some form of nullification? We already know that nullification is unconstitutional, something established prior to the Civil War. It would, of course, be a way of forcing a court test and ultimately a new SCOTUS test. Of course it would be functional to force a new court test if the legal arguments are well-founded and not just demagogic grandstanding. However, what if the outcome is that the SCOTUS doesn't give you everything you want? What then? Just askin', as they say.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

In what action would drawing a line in the sand consist? Some form of nullification? We already know that nullification is unconstitutional, something established prior to the Civil War. It would, of course, be a way of forcing a court test and ultimately a new SCOTUS test. Of course it would be functional to force a new court test if the legal arguments are well-founded and not just demagogic grandstanding. However, what if the outcome is that the SCOTUS doesn't give you everything you want? What then? Just askin', as they say.

And although this wasn't directed at me, I am just "replyin'...as they say?


Moderator cut: off topic, personal

Sooo it goes...

Nullification is not unconstitutional. And if it is? Then that can change with a new SCOTUS. Such is the beauty of how the left-activist court have asked for it.

They ignore the principle of "stare-decisis"...but expect and holler like hell that future courts don't recognize their own contempt for past decisions. How sweet it is, sometime....

[&heart]

It needs to be left COMPLETELY to the states.

That being said, I really enjoy living in Texas

[lonestar2007]

Thanks Reb, I agree, so therefore no point in my replying.

DoctorJef, you realize we could spar on this same topic for days and we would still be as far apart on the issues as we began it. Just saying . . .

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

You do realize that the Constitution of the United States was written to make sure that the government (or people who want to use it for their own purposes over other citizens) doesn't GET to "intervene" just because someone thinks it "needs" to to put forth their own personal agenda, don't you? That that was a danger that the founding fathers saw very, very clearly and did their deadlevel best to prevent for future generations as well as their own?

Maybe not. Maybe you need to do some more reading not only of history but specifically of all of the other writings of the people who wrote the Constitution, and a little bit of history of that time and the times immediately preceding it to get some context.

The thing is, the Constitution was written as a flexible document. Much of the document is vague and open to interpretation. The framers intended to allow the Federal Government to have more power than the states. And if you didn't know, overall, the Constitution clearly favors the Federal Government over the states.

[TexasHorseLady]

Um, no, they didn't. They intended THE PEOPLE to have the bulk of the power.

Here's the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That's not vague and open to interpretation at all, much as you might dearly wish for it to be.

[TexasHorseLady]

'The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." -
Patrick Henry



"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson[


Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

The thing is, the Constitution was written as a flexible document. Much of the document is vague and open to interpretation. The framers intended to allow the Federal Government to have more power than the states. And if you didn't know, overall, the Constitution clearly favors the Federal Government over the states.

How selective you are! Which is not surprising!

The Constitution was written (like any constitution is), as a check on the powers of the central power. Which is the reason for the existence of the 9th and 10th ammendments, in particular...

And if YOU didn't know all that? Then that is your problem. The Bill of Rights and the clearly written intial limitations and checks and balances are timeless and permanent as to the very essence of a free people.

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Um, no, they didn't. They intended THE PEOPLE to have the bulk of the power.

Here's the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That's not vague and open to interpretation at all, much as you might dearly wish for it to be.

Except for the fact that there's a Supremacy Clause and a "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution. Also, previous court cases have established the fact the the Federal Government can regulate without infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

[dv1033]

People be thinking they constitutional lawyers up in here.

The constitution was written by two opposing camps that ended up compromising: federalists vs anti-federalist. Federalist won overall.