Dept. of Justice acknowledges the obvious

N

Number 6

Moderator
The US DOJ prepared a report for AG Ashcroft in August, affirming his own research upon becoming AG; to wit, that the Second Amendment affirms an INDIVIDUAL right. Here's the link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2004opinions.htm

Before we all get excited, remember that the Senate released a report back in 1982 that came to the same inescapable conclusion. We all know what an earth-shaking result THAT had.....

BREAKING NEWS: US Government confirms water is wet - film at 11:00! :eek:
 
Glad they finally settled that "water" thing.
I have a friend from Russia named Peter and I sent him this. He wrote back:

"Very good, very good, your government is finally clearifing laws it wrote 200 years ago. So I guess in 200 years more your government will understand its brke to just like Russia."

He went on to mention something about America,s 2nd place in the "space race" too, but I some how lost the rest of his thread. :rolleyes:
 
It seems to me that they are eating the meat and throwing us a bone. The way I see the Second Amendment, it regards something much greater than the individual RKBA.

The thing is, we might be in a monarchy with a King and still have the individual RKBA. But the Second Amendment regards the security of a free State, which is something different than a monarchy. I think the point is that the RKBA is needed to keep a free State from turning into a monarchy.

Again, it seems like we are admiring the bone when they took the meat. I don't need some foreign government telling me that Virginians have an individual RKBA ... I need foreign governments to understand that Virginians have a collective RKBA. Virginians have a right to control Virginia. That is a "free State", and that is the thing the RKBA is needed to secure.
 
Define "state"

"I need foreign governments to understand that Virginians have a collective RKBA. Virginians have a right to control Virginia. That is a "free State", and that is the thing the RKBA is needed to secure."

What "foreign government" is trying to control Virginia?

If you're trying to claim that The Old Dominion is somehow sovereign, it relinquished that status when its representatives signed the Constitution. The issue was settled beyond rational dispute in 1865, 75 years after that act. :rolleyes:
 
"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."
Click to expand...

Funny how every other Amendment is worded virtually the same and have always been considered undeniably an individual right, but it took them 200 years to figure this one out...

They never do seem to get the big picture and that is that we're ALL in the militia regardless of age, race or gender.
 
Sure, the intent is obvious for anyone willing to give it an honest read, but previous administrations have been unwilling to do just that.
 
It is my understanding that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with the Federal DOJ. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not. The latter believes the Second Amendment is a "collective" right as opposed to an "individual" right. The CA Supremes agree with the 9th Circuit as well. Both the 9th Circuit and the CA Supreme Court have their "collective" heads buried way up that dark channel where only anaerobic bacteria thrive. You don't have a right to own a firearm, but you do have a right to relieve yourself on a San Francisco street corner at noon on a weekday.
 
As noted, the Bushies tacit acknowledgement of the RKBA is at best a form of conceptual bribe.
Keeps some potential discontents quiet while the rest of our rights are compromised.
And really,if we lose the rest of the autonomy of our homes, or communications due to guv'ment intrusion...whether or not you can own a firearm really is a secondary issue.
What will you do with the fool thing...when you can't communicate, organize, or move freely about society?.
"Your papers please", tends to be a good means to negate the effective presence of firearms.
 
remember that the Senate released a report back in 1982 that came to the same inescapable conclusion. We all know what an earth-shaking result THAT had.....
Click to expand...

Excellent point - we must remain ever vigilant.
 
Number 6
If you're trying to claim that The Old Dominion is somehow sovereign, it relinquished that status when its representatives signed the Constitution. The issue was settled beyond rational dispute in 1865, 75 years after that act.
Click to expand...

Actually, those who signed the Constitution agreed to certain specifics. The only thing that was "settled" in 1865 was the Federal government's willingness to suppress the 10th Amendment - whenever it desires to do so - and by force if necessary.
 
Reality check

"Actually, those who signed the Constitution agreed to certain specifics."

Indeed. Ever read any of them?

Start with Article I, Section 10, which enumerates those things which the signatory states CANNOT do and which the sovereign UNITED states, acting through its federal government, CAN. No state autonomy there.

Move on to Article III, Section 2, which states that the federal Supreme Court has ORIGINAL jurisdiction of all cases in which a signatory state is a named party. No state autonomy there, either.

On to Article IV, Par. 2, which states:

"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, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary NOTWITHSTANDING." (Capitalized WORDS for emphasis).

Got that? "SUPREME LAW." RTFD and grasp the concept. :rolleyes:

Note also that the Ninth Amendment says NOTHING about states, and the Tenth merely states that those powers not given to the federal government remain with the states or the people generally. Hardly a challenge to, still less a refutation of, the foregoing.
 
Number 6
Start with Article I, Section 10, which enumerates those things which the signatory states CANNOT do and which the sovereign UNITED states, acting through its federal government, CAN. No state autonomy there.
Click to expand...

Nothing in there that states that any State can not withdraw from the Union.

Move on to Article III, Section 2, which states that the federal Supreme Court has ORIGINAL jurisdiction of all cases in which a signatory state is a named party. No state autonomy there, either.
Click to expand...

And that is clearly stated with a specific limitation. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is neither universal nor unlimited.

Federal jurisdiction is likewise limited, and the Federal courts can not impose Federal laws on State territory, except by consent of the State concerned which has ceded or partially ceded jurisdiction over specific matters - or territory. There are a pile of Supreme Court rulings that clearly reaffirm this.

So the States do retain a measure of sovereignty within their own jurisdictions.

Just try and get a Federal "equal opportunity" or "labor law" case into a Federal Court against an employer or entity that has no contract or agreement with the United States Federal government. It won't fly in the Supreme Court either - because they have no jurisdiction. Now a State court might have jurisdiction if the case is based on State law.

"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, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary NOTWITHSTANDING." (Capitalized WORDS for emphasis).
Click to expand...

Only within the prescribed limits of the Constitution itself. The Federal government can not universally legislate and impose anything that passes the Federal Legislature on the States.

The Supreme Court for it's own part has overstepped it's bounds and quite often ruled contrary to the Constitution of the United States, in what has been a progressive agenda of change, turning key elements of our system of government on it's head. If we had a Congress instead of a herd of geldings this would have been addressed a long time ago.
 
Now from what I read, and the way it SEEMS to me, is that the Constitution in and of itself is to be the final law. Used to end all disputes. I realize that the states are provided sovereignty in some respects, but constitutional law is supposed to override state law in instances when state laws are unconstitutional. Makes sense to me......
 
Nonsense

"Federal jurisdiction is likewise limited, and the Federal courts can not impose Federal laws on State territory, except by consent of the State concerned which has ceded or partially ceded jurisdiction over specific matters - or territory. There are a pile of Supreme Court rulings that clearly reaffirm this."

Name one - from the last 80 years or so.

The entire history of 14th Amendment case law is the application of Constitution protections - i.e., the Bill of Rights - to STATE violations thereof. And "supreme law of the land" means JUST that! If state law conflicts with interstate commerce, individual rights, war powers, whatever - state law LOSES.

The states "ceded or partially ceded jurisdiction" when their representatives signed the Constitution.

Like the blind pig finding the acorn, however, you ARE right about ONE thing:

"Nothing in there that states that any State can not withdraw from the Union."

However, that issue has been rendered moot........
 
Sovereign States

The opinion that Virginia surrendered its sovereignty when we ratified the Constitution is so mistaken that I hardly know where to begin.:rolleyes:

The US does not have jurisdiction over "individual rights". The BOR was intended to clarify the limits on federal government, it was not intended to create new broad/general US powers by federalizing "individual rights".

Regarding modern SCOTUS cases which explain that the States have sovereignty, I believe that there are some cases out there which add up to what is being called "new federalism".

Here is a description of our form of government from a 1991 SCOTUS case Gregory v Ashcroft:

As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government. This Court also has recognized this fundamental principle. In Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990), "[w]e beg[a]n with the axiom that, under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause." Over 120 years ago, the Court described the constitutional scheme of dual sovereigns:
"`[T]he people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence," . . . "[W]ithout the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), quoting Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869).
The Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers. "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." U.S. Const., Amdt. 10. The States thus retain substantial sovereign authority under our constitutional system. As James Madison put it: [501 U.S. 452, 458]
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
This federalist structure of joint sovereigns preserves to the people numerous advantages. It assures a decentralized government that will be more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society; it increases opportunity for citizen involvement in democratic processes; it allows for more innovation and experimentation in government; and it makes government more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry. See generally McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders' Design, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1484, 1491-1511 (1987); Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 3-10 (1988).
Perhaps the principal benefit of the federalist system is a check on abuses of government power. "The "constitutionally mandated balance of power" between the States and the Federal Government was adopted by the Framers to ensure the protection of "our fundamental liberties.'" Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985), quoting Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 572 (1985) (Powell, J., dissenting). Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate Branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one Branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. Alexander Hamilton explained to the people of New York, perhaps optimistically, that the new federalist system would [501 U.S. 452, 459] suppress completely "the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny":
"n a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." The Federalist No. 28, pp. 180-181 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
James Madison made much the same point:
"In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." Id., No. 51, p. 323.
One fairly can dispute whether our federalist system has been quite as successful in checking government abuse as Hamilton promised, but there is no doubt about the design. If this "double security" is to be effective, there must be a proper balance between the States and the Federal Government. These twin powers will act as mutual restraints only if both are credible. In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty. [501 U.S. 452, 460]
The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const., Art. VI. As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States. This is an extraordinary power in a federalist system. It is a power that we must assume Congress does not exercise lightly.
Click to expand...
 
In this important discussion of Constitutional law, I feel compelled to point out the following: Pigs find acorns (& truffles) by smell, not sight, so blind pigs are at no disadvatage. The profound implications of this you may now discuss amongst yourselves.
 
Old news from the Old Dominion

"The opinion that Virginia surrendered its sovereignty when we ratified the Constitution is so mistaken that I hardly know where to begin."

Well, let me show you - again. From YOUR own citation:

"The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const., Art. VI. As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States. This is an extraordinary power in a federalist system."

Once again, as you seemed to have missed it:

"Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States."

A state which can have its will superceded by another's is "sovereign" in name - or delusion - only. Hint: It's called "The Supremacy Clause" for a reason. :rolleyes:

You, sir, are now hoist on your own petard. :D
 
This is all well and good. Until the Supreme Court reverses itself on Miller and strikes down everything since it is acedemic. Tidbits to the yapping dogs. Doesn't mean anything changes.
 
Quite true.
And arguement of constitutional points, as valid (or entertaining) as it might be on this forum (and others), misses the core of the issue.
Much of this ties to a projection of will and accordingly power, and the means to project that will is institutional force, be that administrative, legal, or military. And the current administration has made it very clear it is willing to exert that will, to its own ends. Often with quite chilling disregard for the finer points of constitutional rights.
So presuming that the Bush admin./or much of the current structure in government can be really influenced by the citing of hoary (and revered) rights, could be a bit misguided.
They too, will speak of these, but ultimately their true intentions are shown by such as "Homeland Security",
"the War on Terror" and the other superficially noble causes.
But what lurks behind the sound bites and posing with old glory wrapped around them, is truly disturbing.
 
Number 6,

Why the last eighty years? Because there has been an agenda of change in this country which has penetrated the highest levels of the Judiciary over the last eighty years?

These are not all U.S. Supreme Court cases; but the lower Federal courts have upheld the principle as well;

New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836)

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837)

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)

Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885)

James v. Dravo Contracting Company, 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208 (1937)

Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of State of Washington, 302 U.S. 186, 58 S.Ct. 233 (1937)

Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture of California, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628 (1943)

Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S.Ct. 617 (1943)

S.R.A. v. Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 563-64, 66 S.Ct. 749 (1946)

Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963)

United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973)

Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894)

American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909)

United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922)

Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932)

Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949)

United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949)

United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963)

McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (upholding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial)

Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial)

United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (federal wiretap laws as territorial)

Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978)

Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (federal age discrimination laws as territorial)

Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (same as Cleary, supra)

United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (marine mammals protection act as territorial)

Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1985) (age discrimination laws as territorial)

Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (Railway Labor Act as territorial)

Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (age discrimination laws as territorial)

Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial)

Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (administration of Social Security Act as territorial)

Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (securities act as territorial)

Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215: The Court declared:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 1974), in finding federal jurisdiction for a robbery committed at Fort Rucker, the court held:

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor."

State jurisdiction is there in plain view, in the Constitution (read and understand). To be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

Still not convinced? Or are you in favor of the gradual overthrow that has taken place of our Constitution and system of government? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top