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.
I don't know what any of that has to do with my assertions. Americans always had guns and the US constitution was just restating an old natural right of the people.
The Constitution did not give the Federal government the authority to interfere in "states' rights" when it came to what kinds of gun-control measures they implemented.
Obviously they didn't allow slaves to own guns. Nor did they necessarily allow criminals to own guns, or the mentally ill, there were probably age limits, or restrictions on open-carry, and in some parts of the country, you weren't allowed to bring a gun into town at all, unless you had a special permit or were a member of law-enforcement.
So this notion that the founders believed that the "right to bear arms" was inviolable, is bull****. It is a pseudo-history.
Obviously none of your rights are absolute rights. Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. And throughout most of America's History, the limits on freedom of speech were regulated by the individual states. It wasn't until 1925 when you had the first Supreme Court case on the first amendment.
And likewise, prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, the states were the sole regulators of the limits on the second-amendment. And it wasn't until 2008 that any state gun-control laws were struck down.
As I have repeated time-and-again, the Second-amendment did not apply to the states until the "Privileges and Immunities clause" of the 14th amendment, and what has come to be called the "Incorporation Doctrine".
Exactly as were the states legislators with their constitutions and laws and the states executive branch were bound to the US constitution. The US constitution wasn't just intended to restrain the federal government for the states but restrain all government on the people. The constitution was intended for the people.
Also, the whole "judicial review" and "incorporation of rights" were largely just the supreme court claiming powers so as to enforce novel interpretations of the constitution onto everything they wanted. For example the original meaning and application of the 14th amendment was xyz but the Court decided it means and applies to a-z. The Court has "judicial review" and "incorporated the constitution" to apply to everything under the sun yay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The Justices are supposed to uphold the Constitution, per their Oath of Office. They have no authority to "interpret" the Constitution to fit their whims.
When Congress authorizes pay increases and/or numerical changes for the Court system, including the Supreme Court, it is ratifying their role. It is called the "judicial reenactment doctrine. See Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship, 1-1-1988, Interpreting Legislative Inaction by William N. Eskridge Jr. (link).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yale Law School Legal Repository
Issues of "legislative inaction" often arise in cases where the Supreme Court considers the validity of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and the argument is made that the interpretation must be accepted because Congress has acquiesced in it by not overruling it, has ratified it by reenacting the statute, or at some point was presented with a formal bill or amendment embodying an alternative interpretation and rejected it.'
If Congress was unhappy with the Supreme Court's arrogation of power it has always had the power to stop it. It hasn't done so for roughly 228 year. And the executive branch could have refused to administer Court decisions as the law of the land. Same story.
This attempt to rewrite U.S. history is getting repetitive and tiresome.
They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
What was that MIB line? "Your proposal is acceptable."
But seriously, of course the Constitution needs interpretation and of course the founders - not being idiots -knew that was the case. Everybody gets all sorts of touchy when guns are mentioned, so let's go with something a bit more applicable - free speech, say. The First Amendment is very clear that there can be no law abridging free speech. Yet, if I take a megaphone, stand on the sidewalk in front of my neighbor's house and read "Art of the Deal" at the top of my lungs, the police gets all up in my business.
Turns out that rights have to be balanced against each other. My neighbor's right to a bit of peace and quiet takes precedence over my right to free speech. And that, right there, is an example of interpreting constitutional rights. Yes, a trivial one. It gets complicated right quick in real life.
I don't know what any of that has to do with my assertions.
You claimed that the Constitution was written to "restrain federal power against the states" when in fact it increased federal power over the states, as compared to the Articles of Federation. Redshadowz' post provides evidence to the contrary. (As does, incidentally, a brief perusal of the Articles and the Constitution.)
You are wrong. Do you even know why the Constitution was created in the first place?
To create the Federal govt as the structure it describes, give it certain powers, and sharply limit it to ONLY those powers. Leaving the rest for the State and lower governments if they wanted them.
To create the Federal govt as the structure it describes, give it certain powers, and sharply limit it to ONLY those powers. Leaving the rest for the State and lower governments if they wanted them.
The Left constantly ignores that last part.
As said before that is the essential Madison versus Hamilton argument. The Hamilton faction won. The strict constructionists lost in 1937 and since.
You claimed that the Constitution was written to "restrain federal power against the states" when in fact it increased federal power over the states, as compared to the Articles of Federation. Redshadowz' post provides evidence to the contrary. (As does, incidentally, a brief perusal of the Articles and the Constitution.)
The articles of federation is just a red herring thrown in. The Constitution increased federal power over what the articles of federation did, but that wasn't the debate, and was intended to restrain or define federal power and assert rights of the people. Americans always had guns since it was just an old ancient right. And states and local governments didn't generally or meaningfully interfere with that right.
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.
