Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The historical intent of the framers? The BIll of Rights is the most anti-federalist portion of the COTUS .They put it there. You are telling me Patrick Henry wanted to give the Bill of Rights to the Federal government so they could impose it on the states? YOU are the one who is biased. It is entirely designed to prevent action on any kind.
Sorry no can do. You have to say the Bill of Rights was wrong and should have been activist in its approach. Of course that would please Madison.
See this is why no one here is taking you seriously. You can't even get the difference between "Founders" and "Framers" right. It is embarrasing.
Oh, and the 14th amendment is what prevents states from outright banning all guns. They of course can make all guns difficult to get if they wish. If you are wondering how banning certain types (specific models) of guns is passing in certain states, well, ask Scalia about that. He opened that door as a very Conservative Justice years ago.
See this is why no one here is taking you seriously. You can't even get the difference between "Founders" and "Framers" right. It is embarrasing.
Yeah that's really embarrassing. You want to tell me that if was not "framed" by him? The reason he did not "frame" it is because he did not want to sign it. However the Bill of Rights is certainly due to his influence and he was not grating powers to the Federal government. Its ridiculous.
Oh, and the 14th amendment is what prevents states from outright banning all guns. They of course can make all guns difficult to get if they wish. If you are wondering how banning certain types (specific models) of guns is passing in certain states, well, ask Scalia about that. He opened that door as a very Conservative Justice years ago.
Yes and that is the game. Now states with lots of liberals cannot make their own gun laws due to their activist Bill of Rights position. So true. where is the consistency on either side?
The historical intent of the framers? The BIll of Rights is the most anti-federalist portion of the COTUS .They put it there. You are telling me Patrick Henry wanted to give the Bill of Rights to the Federal government so they could impose it on the states? YOU are the one who is biased. It is entirely designed to prevent action on any kind.
Sorry no can do. You have to say the Bill of Rights was wrong and should have been activist in its approach. Of course that would please Madison.
No, but the radical Republicans did. Also I am pretty sure Patrick Henry didn't want the Constitution generally.
No, but the radical Republicans did. Also I am pretty sure Patrick Henry didn't want the Constitution generally.
Yes and he as part of the anti-Federalist political force was why the Bill of Rights appeared in the Constitution. It was to appease them. I can imagine them rolling in their graves at the idea that their Bill of Rights was to be a tool against the states. Then you have people quoting Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist, as if he were on that side of the argument.
I suppose they could be wrong. However it is certainly not in the spirit of the Bill of Rights to impose anything on the states. Ironically I favor the activist approach with respect the 1st and 2nd amendment as a practical matter, but since I view the excess of Federal power as an evil in itself, I object to the means not the ends. Then you have these here liberals who like to impose the 1st while wanting the states observe the 2nd. The conservatives play the opposite game. They are equality an unprincipled lot of hypocrites IMHO.
Yes and he as part of the anti-Federalist political force was why the Bill of Rights appeared in the Constitution. It was to appease them. I can imagine them rolling in their graves at the idea that their Bill of Rights was to be a tool against the states. Then you have people quoting Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist, as if he were on that side of the argument.
I think you are missing the point though by talking about Federalists and anti-Federalists, no serious person disputes that the Bill of rights did not apply to the states before the 1860s, that was the era controlled by Barron v Baltimore. The 14th amendment is how incorporation came to be and that was passed in the 1860s by radical Republicans who hated the states and the idea of state sovereignty.
Yeah that's really embarrassing. You want to tell me that if was not "framed" by him? The reason he did not "frame" it is because he did not want to sign it. However the Bill of Rights is certainly due to his influence and he was not grating powers to the Federal government. Its ridiculous.
You do remind me of legal "scholars" .
Ok seriously. I'll hold your hand for the "Founders" vs "Framers" issue.
All of the "Founders" were DEAD when the "Framers" of the 14th amendment drafted the said amendment. The "Framers" intent, which was nearly 100 years after the "Founders" drafted the Bill of Rights, was to make all rights, laws, and privalges of US citizens apply to all states as well. Notice rights? The whole freaking intent of the 14th amendment was to apply the entire Constitution, and all its rights, towards the States. It is there word for word. It also argueably constrains the 10th amendment when combined with the Supremacy clause. That is why your earlier source is so "biased" against the 14th specifically.
Oh and your State Religion you claim is ok? Guess what, the first amendment was one of the primary amendments the "Framers" wanted to apply to all State governments (mainly for speech and suppressing minorities). But guess what? That means States now can not establish a state religion. It is set in stone in the Constitution and the only way YOU can reverse that now is by ANOTHER amendment to the Constitution.
I think you are missing the point though by talking about Federalists and anti-Federalists, no serious person disputes that the Bill of rights did not apply to the states before the 1860s, that was the era controlled by Barron v Baltimore. The 14th amendment is how incorporation came to be and that was passed in the 1860s by radical Republicans who hated the states and the idea of state sovereignty.
And that amendment did not conclusively claim the entire activist position of the Bill of Rights. It would have been easy to do so. Once it enumerated them, the logic is clear. Its a classic allow logic.
A House resolution supporting the creation of an official religion in North Carolina will never come to a vote, officials said Thursday. House Speaker Thom Tillis' office said House Joint Resolution 494 was dead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
