A Constitutional question.

raimius thank you for posting that. We often discuss the overbearing and burdensome Federal government, yet there are many instances of the Federal government exercising its power for good and just causes. Such as in Little Rock following Brown v BOE.

Of course there still exists the opportunity for the Federal government to become too powerful and turn tyrannical, such that armed insurrection would be appropriate. But it’s important to note in these discussions we are nowhere near that currently. Not even 5% there. I would argue that the US has morphed into something that the founding fathers did not envision, but I would argue that they would also be more or less proud we’ve kept the republic intact as well as we have.
 
Of course there still exists the opportunity for the Federal government to become too powerful and turn tyrannical,...
Click to expand...

This is only a possibility on days when the sun comes up....or end in "y". :rolleyes:

Our history is full of both individual incidents and protracted policies that can, and have been called "tyrannical". Trouble is, one man's "tyranny" is another's "law enforcement" and another's "reasonable precaution" and on and on.

There are people right now saying our President is a tyrant. Pertty sure someone has said that about every President...

Some people think the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own a gun. It does not.

Some think its about resisting a tyrannical government. Its not.

It's about the idea that citizens have the moral and lawful right to arms, for any and every reason they might need them, and the government's authority to restrict that.

Today, we have a lot of people in our country, many in positions of influence and some in positions of actual governmental power that believe that the government has a responsibility to restrict people's right to arms.

"for our own good", or "for the children" or "for (insert slogan of the month here...)" Many of those people have no issues violating, or simply ignoring the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd Amendment, and its been going on for a very long time, and we grow accustomed to it.

My Grandfather, if he had had the money and the desire, could have walked into a store and bought a Thompson sub machine gun, and walked out with it. The only paperwork would have been a sales receipt. OR, he could have ordered it from a store, or the maker, and have had it delivered to his home by the US Post Office.

Can you do that, today? Not legally....
To me, that doesn't square well with "shall not be infringed"...

This quote is attributed to George Washington;
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; "
 
dahermit said:
Some people think the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own a gun. It does not.
Click to expand...
Please explain...you have a mental picture of what you mean...we do not.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution does not grant (give) us rights. It recognizes that we have those rights, and it purports to guarantee that the government will not violate them.
 
Please explain...you have a mental picture of what you mean...we do not.
Click to expand...

Our country was founded on the idea that rights aren't granted. If they're up to the whim of rulers, they're privileges. I could go on about Locke and Blackstone, but the idea of rights as absolute concepts was a product of the time, and it was somewhat novel. As such, the Founders were sure to structure and word the Bill of Rights in a way that made this clear.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the right to own a gun. It recognizes the right and prohibits the government from infringing on it.
 
I think this has never come about due to A) locals giving in to Federal coercion before the point of armed resistance was reached, and B) the people involved on the Fed side being smart enough to not back the locals, and themselves into that corner.
Click to expand...

The Bundy situation might be close to that however.
 
I think that during the designing years of our form of government, citizens were responsible for their own lives and not dependent on the kindness of any government. They truly valued liberty and were willing to defend it.
I also suspect that today many, not all, citizens have become so used to the largess of government handouts that that it would be very difficult to organize a serious resistance to an out of control government. I believe this to be an unfortunate result of citizens slowly allowing the government to intrude little by little into almost every aspect of our lives. We have willingly given up control in order to seemingly make life easier. Our government run education system is only one example where we lost control. Especially of young minds.
Congress has abdicated it's responsibility to represent the people by allowing agencies like the EPA, OSHA, Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Education and many others to make rules that become law without approval by congress. Congress even made it possible for themselves to get raises without voting for a raise. Did anyone complain? We the people no longer have input as to what new rules are approved.
I could go on but you get the picture.

Bob
NRA Benefactor Member
Golden Eagle
 
Congress has abdicated it's responsibility to represent the people by allowing agencies like the EPA, OSHA, Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Education and many others to make rules that become law without approval by congress.
Click to expand...

I won't argue about Congress's responsibility, I rather agree. However you need to understand a slight, but important difference about the regulations and the law.

I can no longer remember the name of the act (and I'm too lazy to look at this time) but around 30 or so years ago, Congress passed it, and it became law.

Under that law, Congress does not "allow" the various agencies regulations "to become law", Congress REQUIRES those agencies regulations to carry the force of law.

Once upon a time, if you broke a regulation, you did not automatically break the law. Today, not so much. In most cases, if you break a Fed regulation (which is still not, technically, a law) you are now guilty of breaking the law.

Its a word game, but then, that's what Congress does...
 
mehavey said:
Does that apply broadly to Regulation vs Law, or very narrowly?
Click to expand...
Probably narrowly. I am not a lawyer, but I believe it's safe to say that the Supreme Court tends to rule narrowly as much as possible in order to minimize rulings having unintended consequences, and mass upsetting of apple carts in general. In this case, you don't have to read far to see that it's a narrow ruling:

page 2 said:
Held: MacLean’s disclosure was not “specifically prohibited by law.”
Pp. 5–16.
(a) The Government argues that MacLean’s disclosure was “specifically prohibited by law” in two ways: first, by the TSA’s regulations on sensitive security information, and second, by Section 114(r)(1) itself, which authorized the TSA to promulgate those regulations. Pp. 5–14.

(i) MacLean’s disclosure was not prohibited by the TSA’s regulations for purposes of Section 2302(b)(8)(A) because regulations do not qualify as “law” under that statute. Throughout Section 2302, Congress repeatedly used the phrase “law, rule, or regulation.” but Congress did not use that phrase in the statutory language at issue here; it used the word “law” standing alone. Congress’s choice to say “specifically prohibited by law,” instead of “specifically prohibited by law, rule, or regulation” suggests that Congress meant to exclude rules and regulations. ...
Click to expand...
This isn't even the body of the discussion; this is only the summery. From this, we can see that the decision looked at the particular law under which MacLean was fired, and they held that that particular statute appeared to make a distinction between laws vs. rules and regulations.

There's a lot more in there. I don't think we can safely extrapolate from this decision to conclude that no regulations have the force of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top