Results 11 to 19 of 19
Thread: State's Rights vs. Constitution
-
January 5th, 2012, 09:10 PM #11Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
-
Pennsyltucky,
Pennsylvania
- Posts
- 8,076
- Rep Power
- 21474862
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
Then again there is this little gem from Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;FUCK BIDEN
-
January 6th, 2012, 09:26 AM #12
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
-
January 6th, 2012, 10:07 AM #13
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
States don't have rights, they have powers.
All rights and powers originate in the People. The People then gave certain powers to the Federal and state governments in the Constitution. We then reserved some rights that were enumerated in the Bill of Rights(and some amendments after that). We(the People) also stated that even though we didn't enumerate an act, it is in deed a right(see 9th Amendment - any act is a right until regulated). We then set a limit of powers to the federal government, then reserved all other powers that weren't specifically dedicated to the federal and/or state governments to the states and the people(allowing the states to regulate the rights and powers that weren't specifically enumerated).
Long ago some jackwagons in the Supreme Court stated that the Constitution and Amendments didn't directly apply to the states, which in some cases they were correct. However it has been miss-interpreted to apply to against the entire Constitution and all amendments. In that ruling long ago it was found that in the 1st Amendment it only limited "Congress", which was correct. The 2nd Amendment doesn't have that word in it, it completely reserves the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the people. That in all logic also forbids the states from infringing upon the 2nd Amendment too.
A State of the Constitutional United States of American derives it's statehood from the power of the people. It is the Constitution that provides the means to become a state. To become a state the Constitution must be ratified by the potential state, they must recognize the reservation of powers and rights. Any amendment that comes after ratification is treated as original text to the Constitution - so there again, the states must recognize the reservation of any powers or rights.
Also protected in the original text of the Constitution is your right to the same protections of law, privileges, and immunities as residents of other states when you travel to those states(see Article IV Section 2). If we even cede for sake of argument that a state can limit carrying of guns by means of licensing - so long as that state issues licenses to it's own residents, it must issue to non-residents too or at minimum honor the license of the other state. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was ruled an individual and fundamental right protected by the US Constitution, and even following prior Supreme Court cases that only fundamental rights are protected by Art IV, Sec. 2 - the states are bound to some means of allowing you to possess a gun even as a non-resident. The Federal government has all authority to protect individual's rights from state abuse, whether by law or even the use of military action against the state(s).
Now, the proper way the Supreme Court should have ruled was that the 2nd Amendment was self incorporating since the right was specifically reserved to the people - not to the states and the people.RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
January 6th, 2012, 12:49 PM #14
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
The citizen created the state, and the states created the fed utilizing authority granted by the citizen.
The right to defense is a natural right, it should be no domain of the government beyond ensuring the right exists unhampered.
Any citizen is greater than any government.
/for those among us who haven't seen it yet.
"X is what percentage of Y?" Divide the first number by the second, multiply the answer by 100. Add a percent sign. Think.
-
January 6th, 2012, 01:33 PM #15Super Member
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
-
Southampton,
Pennsylvania
(Bucks County) - Posts
- 577
- Rep Power
- 21474849
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
knight0334:
Long ago some jackwagons in the Supreme Court stated that the Constitution and Amendments didn't directly apply to the states, which in some cases they were correct. That was kinda said in a earlier post,I thought I was pretty well versed in the ground breaking stuff the court did.. Guess Not.
Do you happen to know the case, for above. I'd like to know what made them make that decision.
ForwardAssist:
I'm looking forward to watching this when i get home.
good stuff thanks for putting it up here.If You Need A Color In The Name Of Your Cause, You're The "RACIST" !
-
January 6th, 2012, 05:41 PM #16
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
I'm trying to remember which case it was.. ..I had drawn a blank earlier when I typed out my post. I'm thinking it was in the 1820's or 1830's, still trying to figure out which case it was.
EDIT: Here it is- Barron v. Baltimore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._BaltimoreLast edited by knight0334; January 6th, 2012 at 05:53 PM.
RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
-
January 6th, 2012, 08:51 PM #17
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
Because in affirming that the RKBA is an individual right (Heller) and that the 2nd Amendment constrains the states as well as the Federal government (McDonald), the Supreme Court ruled that the RKBA is subject to "reasonable" regulation.
I don't happen to agree with that, but I'm not the final interpreter of U.S. law -- the Supreme Court is.
The Supreme Court did NOT say that all existing (or proposed, or to-be-proposed) gun regulations are "reasonable," but the parameters of what's reasonable and what's not will take years to sort out through the courts.
-
January 6th, 2012, 08:59 PM #18Super Member
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
-
Southampton,
Pennsylvania
(Bucks County) - Posts
- 577
- Rep Power
- 21474849
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
knight0334:
Thanks for getting that link, I read it ,didn't make a bit of sense, so i'm putting it off til tomorrow morning. then i'll be able to think about it over a cup of coffee.
but thanks for the follow up and there's a rep heading your way.
THANKS AGAINLast edited by 51158; January 6th, 2012 at 09:02 PM.
If You Need A Color In The Name Of Your Cause, You're The "RACIST" !
-
January 8th, 2012, 03:23 AM #19
Re: State's Rights vs. Constitution
Most people don't understand that THE PEOPLE have the ULTIMATE RIGHTS and POWER .... and although they delegated power to the Federal Government and the State Government, the actual ULTIMATE RIGHTS and POWER are still RETAINED in THE PEOPLE who can rightfully take-back that delegated power.
Additionally, unless THE PEOPLE actually delegate additional power to the Federal or State Governments (through a change in either Constitution), they have no power to expand their own powers...
It is the Supreme Court that is charged with protecting THE PEOPLE from both the Federal Government and the State Governments from overstepping their DELEGATED POWER by declaring UNCONSTITUTIONAL any exercise of power beyond that which was delegated .....
It is the failure of the Supreme Court on exactly this issue that has led us down this path where the Federal and State Governments trample THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE without any repercussions....
...Last edited by ImminentDanger; January 8th, 2012 at 03:30 AM.
Similar Threads
-
OMG Part Duex Sotomayor just said The Constitution PROVIDES the Rights Granted
By son of the revolution in forum GeneralReplies: 1Last Post: July 15th, 2009, 07:10 PM -
Gun Rights and the Constitution: Was Heller Insignificant?
By 5711-Marine in forum GeneralReplies: 2Last Post: March 26th, 2009, 02:35 PM -
Constitution-Free Zone. losing more than Gun Rights.
By forumuser in forum GeneralReplies: 42Last Post: October 28th, 2008, 03:22 PM -
Local Politicians Disregard your rights, state laws, and constitution
By Bill Ricca in forum GeneralReplies: 4Last Post: September 25th, 2008, 10:55 AM -
Constitution guarantees gun rights for people, not militia
By WhiteFeather in forum GeneralReplies: 4Last Post: June 17th, 2008, 08:43 AM
Bookmarks