State's Rights vs. Constitution

[biggs88]

I have been reading this thread:
http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...a-website.html

And I am at a loss.


States can not regulate, write laws against, alter, or take a different stance on the constitution.

The 1st protects my freedom of speech rights. I can be in PA, NJ, CA, NY. It does not matter.

Just like the 26th allows anyone over the age of 18 to vote. So. NJ cannot make a law or stipulation saying you have to be 21 to vote.

So WHY FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS, IS, AND EVER WILL BE CAN THE STATES REGULATE MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Furthermore, why are pro gun people rooting for the states and allowing them to make their own laws on the subject.

Please explain. . . . . . . Because I am really at a wall here. . .

TO my understanding, the colonies where more of less slowly moving apart and acting like individual countries. They where printing their own money, making there own laws, ect. . . The reason the Constitution was written was "to form a more perfect union".

Nice thought. Sadly no one the public elects really cares. Sooooo, the public really does not care.

IMHO, now that the most important "right" is being sliced down. It's not long until the others are slowly dissolved to the state of the 2nd amendment is now.

I guess it's only nature. No society has lasted or will last for ever. . . . .

[bac0nfat]

It's really simple, I don't know why people struggle with it.

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.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Those two things pretty much completely sum up the relationship between the federal and state governments.

In a nutshell, states cannot pass laws regarding anything that's already in the Constitution, and the federal government cannot pass laws regarding anything that's NOT in the Constitution.

Examples:

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution, so states can't mess with it.

Health care is not in the Constitution, so the federal government can't mess with it.

Of course, both those things have been "messed" with beyond recognition anyway.

[customloaded]

I have been reading this thread:
http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...a-website.html

And I am at a loss.


States can not regulate, write laws against, alter, or take a different stance on the constitution.

The 1st protects my freedom of speech rights. I can be in PA, NJ, CA, NY. It does not matter.

Just like the 26th allows anyone over the age of 18 to vote. So. NJ cannot make a law or stipulation saying you have to be 21 vote.

So WHY FOR SAKE OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS, IS, AND EVER WILL BE CAN THE STATES REGULATE MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Furthermore, why are pro gun people rooting for the states and allowing them to make their own laws on the subject.

Please explain. . . . . . . Because I am really at a wall here. . .

TO my understanding, the colonies where more of less slowly moving apart and acting like individual countries. They where printing their own money, making thei

I for one don't want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to end up regulating Concealed weapons licenses or LTCF. I know what you mean though, I just don't want the FEDS involved. I agree there should be little to no regulation of carrying. We just have to re-educated citizens that a right is a right is a right and a license or permit is not required to exercise a right. That takes time.

CL

[biggs88]

I for one don't want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to end up regulating Concealed weapons licenses or LTCF. I know what you mean though, I just don't want the FEDS involved. I agree there should be little to no regulation of carrying. We just have to re-educated citizens that a right is a right is a right and a license or permit is required to exercise a right. That takes time.

CL

DO you need a "license to speak your mind freely" or a "license for equal voting rights"?

[customloaded]

DO you need a "license to speak your mind freely" or a "license for equal voting rights"?

License to speak my mind? I pay taxes for it.

What are equal voting rights?

CL

[biggs88]

License to speak my mind? I pay taxes for it.

What are equal voting rights?

CL

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


The feds will not have to regulate CCW's and LTCF because those types of things really should not play a role when it come's to a right. . .

Just like it does not play a role in freedom of speech and voting rights.

So. You said: "I for one don't want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to end up regulating Concealed weapons licenses or LTCF"

What I am saying is if you do not need a permit to speak your mind, why should you NEED one for the right that comes next in line?!?!?!?!?

[Helter]

I have been reading this thread:
http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...a-website.html

And I am at a loss.


States can not regulate, write laws against, alter, or take a different stance on the constitution.

The 1st protects my freedom of speech rights. I can be in PA, NJ, CA, NY. It does not matter.

Just like the 26th allows anyone over the age of 18 to vote. So. NJ cannot make a law or stipulation saying you have to be 21 to vote.

So WHY FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS, IS, AND EVER WILL BE CAN THE STATES REGULATE MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Furthermore, why are pro gun people rooting for the states and allowing them to make their own laws on the subject.

Please explain. . . . . . . Because I am really at a wall here. . .

TO my understanding, the colonies where more of less slowly moving apart and acting like individual countries. They where printing their own money, making there own laws, ect. . . The reason the Constitution was written was "to form a more perfect union".

Nice thought. Sadly no one the public elects really cares. Sooooo, the public really does not care.

IMHO, now that the most important "right" is being sliced down. It's not long until the others are slowly dissolved to the state of the 2nd amendment is now.

I guess it's only nature. No society has lasted or will last for ever. . . . .

It's not really that simple... What you're talking about is "incorporation", it started IIRC with the 14th amendment. Before that, the constitution was applied only to the federal government. SOME parts of the constitution, such as the 14th (and 26th) amendments specifically mention the states in their restrictions. Some do not, but the courts have incorporated the restriction to apply to the states. The 2nd neither specifically limits the power of the states (thus it can be assumed to have been intended as a restriction for the federal government only), nor has it been fully incorporated by the courts.
(This is all off the top of my head, and I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, so take it with a grain of salt)

[customloaded]

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


The feds will not have to regulate CCW's and LTCF because those types of things really should not play a role when it come's to a right. . .

Just like it does not play a role in freedom of speech and voting rights.

So. You said: "I for one don't want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to end up regulating Concealed weapons licenses or LTCF"

What I am saying is if you do not need a permit to speak your mind, why should you NEED one for the right that comes next in line?!?!?!?!?

I don't have the answer to your question. Don't take this wrong but if you are 23 years old, trust me when I say this, I've been advocating Constitutional carry while you were still in Diapers. LOL

Yes, I've read the Constituion many times. My point has to do with the fact that a special amendment was added covering equal voting rights when, in fact, there need not be an amendment because under the Federal Constitution, no prohibition was enacted based on race, color, creed, national origin, or sex.

CL

[51158]

lets see if I can get this right,
the constitution only creates a form of government.it really has nothing to do with our rights. it ONLY forms our government and the operation of..
the bill of rights just REAFFIRMS our rights. our rights are god given

what i always like to say is:
what man gives he can also take away.
man gives you rights he can also take them away.

The writers of the constitution after it was all written,trying to get the states to sign it. they needed to create the bill of rights to get the individual states to sign it..Bill of rights was created 9 years after the constitution..(if I remember correctly)

If you really want to now the constitution read the "federalist papers" . john jay and alexander hamilton wrote them and put them in the news papers for everyone to read, it's in the language on the day but it's written for common people (not lawyers) GREAT READ..

It explains the constitution and why they put what they put in there..The constitution has nothing to do with us as individuals..

A little disclaimer needed: I'm NOT A LAWYER
boy did i go off base

lets try this

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.

short and sweet: IMHO
The above are 2 statements. JUST MY OPINION
throughout the declaration of independence, the constitution and the bill of rights. "people" means individuals. so you have a god given right to protect yourself BUT the state have the ability to set the terms of that right.
You can have guns in the people republic of jersey, you just can't have them in public..Basically they were more concerned about the federal government taking away your rights than state doing so.

this might help with how the bill can be argued, of coarse IMHO
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States".
this is from article 4 section 2
basically if it's good in pa it's good in jersey, this is supposed to be a protection for us, politicians being politicians, i'll leave that to you to fill in the blanks.

pa drivers license a privilege "honored" in jersey
license to carry a firearm a right " Not honored" in jersey
Go Figure!

something to think about

The creation of this country was an experiment, it doesn't have to work!

Does this help?

OKEDOKE, LET THE GAMES BEGIN

[TaePo]

It's not really that simple... What you're talking about is "incorporation", it started IIRC with the 14th amendment. Before that, the constitution was applied only to the federal government. SOME parts of the constitution, such as the 14th (and 26th) amendments specifically mention the states in their restrictions. Some do not, but the courts have incorporated the restriction to apply to the states. The 2nd neither specifically limits the power of the states (thus it can be assumed to have been intended as a restriction for the federal government only), nor has it been fully incorporated by the courts.
(This is all off the top of my head, and I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, so take it with a grain of salt)

Incorporation under the 14th takes us further afield into territory that Alexander Hamilton was against enumerating rights in the constitution in the first place. One can totally undo 'rights' that are incorporated by repealing the fourteenth*, unlike the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) which can never be separated from individuals. Here is my non-lawyer (non-twisted?) understanding:

“The sacred rights of mankind
are not to be rummaged for,
among old parchments, or musty
records. They are written, as
with a sun beam in the whole
volume of human nature, by the
hand of the divinity itself; and
can never be erased or obscured
by mortal power.’’
- Alexander Hamilton, 1775

111th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION /
SENATE DOCUMENT 111–4:

The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.

One key is in the Bill of Rights itself (B.o.R.), # X:

Amendment X.
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.

It discusses powers. Powers not specifically granted (delegated: meaning given from a higher prominence to lower such as from the people to the United States via the Constitution.) nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. This delineates how the power is to be handled and where it is derived from (the people via the Constitution). It also outlines what I consider the three major "governments": The Federal Government, the State Governments and Individuals (the people). I have listed them in order from least to greatest in power. One can argue, however that the Federal and the State levels should be switched so that State power is less than Federal power since the Constitution outlines first and foremost, Federal powers. In this case, it is a moot point in my opinion. What is important is that "the people" always hold prominence.

IANAL but I am a citizen of these United States.



The Federalist Papers #84:

Alexander Hamilton feared that enumerating rights would create a basis for a constructive grab for powers not allowed by the Constitution.

“Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Hamilton, n.d.)


The Federalist Papers #10:

John Patrick (2003) summarizes James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10:

“…the Constitution was to limit power from any source, including the will of the majority, in order to protect the rights of individuals against tyranny.”

References

The Library of Congress: Bill of Rights. (1789, September 25). Retrieved October 22, 2010, from American Memory: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=144

Hamilton, A. (n.d.). The Federalist Papers No. 84. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from The Library of Congress Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

Patrick, J. J. (2003). The Bill of Rights: A History in Documents. Oxford University Press.

Note: Retrieval dates are older as they are excerpted from a prior paper/presentation.

*ETA= Incorporation also may leave the door open to define limitations to rights that heretofore were not limited. Such as where one can carry, how one can carry (or even keep) and what weapons are acceptable; and how they are to be kept, if at all. This is, of course, a far cry from the 2A, "shall not be infringed" clause and Hamilton's opening quote above about rights never being "erased or obscured by mortal powers".