Brush up on your History

Brush up on your NRA sponsored yankee propaganda

in America, rights--by definition--belong to individuals.

The Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of individuals.
Click to expand...

Sounds like absolute bs to me. In a federal system, States have rights. The BOR was not created just to protect the rights of individuals, it was created to limit the federal government and thus protect all our rights, whether individual or collective, from infringement by the US.
 
Hugh said:
In a federal system, States have rights.
Click to expand...
Hugh, please show me, in the ever so clear words of the Constitution or any of the amendments, where states have rights?

You can't, because states don't have rights. They have "Powers" and "Authorities" like any government. Rights belong to people.

People talk about "States Rights," but it is a euphimism, that is nowhere written as law.
 
Hugh, please show me, in the ever so clear words of the Constitution or any of the amendments, where states have rights?

You can't, because states don't have rights. They have "Powers" and "Authorities" like any government. Rights belong to people.

People talk about "States Rights," but it is a euphimism, that is nowhere written as law.
Click to expand...

See 9th & 10th amendments. Plus, it is self evident. Since the federal government is a creation by the states (a covenant or compact), which the states have delegated certain powers, the states can obviously withdraw those powers.

The phrase "we the people" can more accurately be described as "we the people of the sovereign states." (the Framers didn't word it exactly like that because they didn't know which states were and were not going to ratify the Constitution at the time) Each state or community has it's own right to govern itself as it sees fit.
 
See 9th & 10th amendments.
Click to expand...
The 9th Amendment discusses rights retained by the people and the 10th Amendment discusses powers reserved to the States or the people.
The phrase "we the people" can more accurately be described as "we the people of the sovereign states."
Click to expand...
There was some controversy over "We the People" at the time the Constitution was proposed:
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention:
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?
Click to expand...
 
Since the federal government is a creation by the states
Click to expand...

"we the people of the sovereign states."
Click to expand...


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

Ill take the right of the people for $1000 Alex.
 
history is nice

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/

try reading
Give me Liberty or Give me Death
The Declaration of Arms
Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation with close attention to VI.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Click to expand...
 
Hugh says;
The BOR was not created just to protect the rights of individuals, it was created to limit the federal government and thus protect all our rights, whether individual or collective, from infringement by the US.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. Read the Amendments again.
 
Each state or community has it's own right to govern itself as it sees fit.
Click to expand...
They only have the power to govern as the people see fit.

the people can see fit to vote out any politician they want and vote for the people who will govern according to their wishes

They also have the right to sit back and allow the government to run them over
 
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
Click to expand...

the people acting through their individual states representing them in the federal system. We the people are not we the people of America as some big homogenus body, it is we the people of the United STATES. That was the original intent of the Founders anyway.

They only have the power to govern as the people see fit.

the people can see fit to vote out any politician they want and vote for the people who will govern according to their wishes

They also have the right to sit back and allow the government to run them over
Click to expand...

Right, and that ties in perfectly why what I said to Eghad.
 
Sorry doug I misinterpreted your comment.
I don't think mine ties in with yours I think I just repeated you, just in a more simplistic fashion:o
 
Doug.38PR said:
See 9th & 10th amendments. Plus, it is self evident. Since the federal government is a creation by the states (a covenant or compact)...
Click to expand...
No Doug. As gc70 points out, the 9th talks about rights reserved by the people, not the states. And in the 10th, it says that the "Powers" not delegated to the central government nor denied to the states, are reserved to the states themselves (if in their own constitutions) or the people (from whence all "power" stems).

So it is not self-evident that states have rights. None of the Founders thought so. They all knew that "rights" were something that belonged to living breathing men. Governments had only powers and authorities.
Since the federal government is a creation by the states (a covenant or compact), which the states have delegated certain powers, the states can obviously withdraw those powers.
Click to expand...
Nope. Firstly, it was the people, in conventions of their states, that voted in the new compact. The States (that is the legislatures of the states) had no say in this matter. So it was not just a compact of the states.

Secondly, the idea that a state could just withdraw its delegated powers is wrong from its inception. Consider the words: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." This begs the question, What union was less perfect. Most people today do not get the context. And that is, that the less perfect union, by inference, was the Articles of Confederation.

The AoC was designed from the beginning to be a perpetual union (preamble and Art. XIII).

The AoC named itself, "The United States of America" (Art. I).

It is in Art. II that states were invested with "rights" (but see also the 1st, 3rd and 4th paragraphs of Art. IX, which are qualifiers as to state "rights"). These so-called "rights" were actually powers of the states and were so designated within the U.S. Constitution.

With the writing of the Constitution, governments assumed only delegated powers while citizens (the People) had rights.

But the idea of a perpetual union persisted in the original thinking, even if it wasn't explicitly written down. Take a cold hard look at Art. IV Section 3: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;" This also implies that a State may leave the Union (remove its delegated powers) by the same way it entered. By permission of the Congress.

A civil war was fought on the assumption that the Union was in fact perpetual. It was Texas v. White , 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that the Supreme Court ruled upon how a State should leave - by the same process it entered. Congressional Permission.
 
by Antipitas:
But the idea of a perpetual union persisted in the original thinking, even if it wasn't explicitly written down.
Click to expand...

New England was apparently not privy to that original thinking. Various New England states threatened secession in 1803 (Louisiana Purchase), 1814 (economic impact of War of 1812), and 1845 (Texas statehood).

by Antipitas:
It was Texas v. White , 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that the Supreme Court ruled upon how a State should leave - by the same process it entered.
Click to expand...

Texas v. White is not exactly an unbiased decision. Chief Justice Chase's opinion made it clear that it was a foregone conclusion that secession was illegal because finding otherwise would have meant that "The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation." It would have been a bit awkward for the Supreme Court to rule in 1869 that the Civil War had been illegal.
 
The NRA article claims that "in America, rights--by definition--belong to individuals", but the United States of America is founded upon States' rights. The American Revolution was fought to secure to the people of each State the collective right of self-government. The Declaration of Independence refers to a collective right to alter or to abolish government. When the States formed the US, the Second Article of Confederation declared that each State retained its rights. The US Constitution had no such article, so the States requested the Tenth Amendment, the "States' Rights Amendment". My dictionary doesn't define "rights" as something that only individuals have ... it's as if the NRA article is written by someone from another land, with a different history and a different dictionary.

The NRA article describes the USBOR as a declaration of "the fundamental freedoms that are at the heart of our society". But the USBOR does not declare a national society, it declares principles of, or limits upon, US government.

I thought it was especially bad for the article to say that the Framers knew just what the Second Amendment meant because they collected guns and hunted. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with collecting guns and hunting. I reckon the Framers knew what the Second Amendment meant because they remembered the British Army that was once here to rule over their States.

It's as if the intent is to take the principles of free States and federalism and sweep them under the rug. What has gun collecting or hunting got to do with free government? And how can there be a federal system without States' rights?
 
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." This begs the question, What union was less perfect. Most people today do not get the context. And that is, that the less perfect union, by inference, was the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...
The State governments are complete or "perfect" governments. They are designed to stand alone, and to have all the powers necessary to the government of a free and independent State. The federal government is imperfect, it is not intended to stand alone, it is intended to handle certain enumerated powers. Of course the Constitution creates a more perfect union than the Articles did, but they aren't talking about "perfection" as we normally use the word today.

We the people of the United States ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
The US Constitution is a compact between the States. That is what "federal" means. The Preamble began "We the People of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc." but it wasn't clear that all States would join, and once nine States ratified the Constitution it was to take effect in those nine States ... so it was changed to say "We the People of the United States". It does not mean that the US is empowered by a popular vote, the US is empowered by the States ... or rather the US is empowered by the people as fifty sovereign bodies, not as one big sovereign body.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
Click to expand...
A State is empowered by its people, and the people of each State have a right to alter/abolish it. The people of the US have no right to alter/abolish US government ... Federalist #39 explains that if the US were wholly national then the people of the US would have a right to alter/abolish the US, but that the US is not wholly national.
 
"The people of the US have no right to alter/abolish US government ..."

If that were so, would it not be impossible to amend the US constitution, which defines the US government?

Tim
 
If that were so, would it not be impossible to amend the US constitution, which defines the US government?
Click to expand...

no, because they amend the constitution via the states. Their state representative and senator represent the people of their states (we the people). Just like the states sent delegates to the original constitutional convention.

You're thinking as through America is supposed to be this one big mass of people. (As do a lot of people, I used to.) But it isn't. It's supposed to be (and de facto is) 50 unique and different states that come together as a voluntary Union with the Constitution establishing rules and procedures for the federal government.
 
yeah but there isn't a single state in the US that can survive on its own (no, not even texas)

The communications and transportations infrastructures already in place make having 50 individual states that only get together to discuss rules and procedure impossible. Maybe a hundred years ago when there wasn't so much national and international communication and travel but in this day and age we are one country with individual regions. Going back to a setup like the colonial times would absolutely weaken the nation.

It's not voluntary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top