Rudy Giuliani, Guns, and Federalism

Of course not. It's a shame people have such little respect for federal boundaries. I bet if NY wanted to pass a law which said that Virginians couldn't buy a handgun in Virginia without permission from NY, people would respect that NY has no such power ... but when the feds do it, people seem to think it's different somehow.
Click to expand...

Um...this is in no way analogous, and it is different. NY has no power to regulate trade in VA, but the federal government does have the power (outlined in the Constitution) to regulate interstate trade. Which, unfortunately, has ruled to be pretty much anything.

EDIT: Also, note that the question wasn't whether you think it should be possible, but rather whether it is.
 
The battle that counts is Congress. You are getting Rudy or Fred vs Hilbama and all the whining and screeching isnt going to change it. If you want to pout and not vote, thats cool, but at least help get gun folks elected in your local area.

I assume those who choose not to vote on alleged "principles" will not stoop to whining about Hillbama if they are elected

WildandrudyisntstupidAlaska TM
 
The battle that counts is Congress. You are getting Rudy or Fred vs Hilbama and all the whining and screeching isnt going to change it.
Click to expand...

That's probably true, and recent experience indicates the the government will grow at half the rate if we manage to get a Dem in the White House and a Republican Congress, but all of that has nothing to do with the original premise of this thread, nor with the question I asked.

I provided a source for the premise, you refuted it twice with no reference at all.

How many times am I going to have to request a source? You were not willing to take my word for it that Rudy wants us to get permission before getting a handgun. Well, guess what? I'm not willing to take your word for it that he has changed his mind.

Your source?
 
Um...this is in no way analogous, and it is different. NY has no power to regulate trade in VA, but the federal government does have the power (outlined in the Constitution) to regulate interstate trade. Which, unfortunately, has ruled to be pretty much anything.

EDIT: Also, note that the question wasn't whether you think it should be possible, but rather whether it is.
Click to expand...

First off, the question was not whether I think it would be possible for Congress to pass a law saying that we must prove a need to own a handgun, the question was whether I believe that the US Constitution delegates Congress a power to pass such a law. And I believe that it does not.

If you think that the interstate commerce power covers this, then you are confused. This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, the subject is a US law saying that we must prove a need to own a handgun.

And my analogy was NOT different ... you seem to think that Virginia has reserved rights against New York but not against the US. Like I said, it's a shame people have such little respect for federal boundaries.
 
Last edited:
RE:HughDamright

If you think that Congress' powers have some sort of limit please read Section 8, Clause 18, of the Constitution under the "Powers of Congress." This part is called the Elastic Clause for a good reason.
 
I just hope Guiliani gets taken out of the equation by the primaries so we don't have to wonder about any of this. I feel more threatened by him than I do many criminals. At least I can protect myself from them.
 
If you think that Congress' powers have some sort of limit please read Section 8, Clause 18, of the Constitution under the "Powers of Congress." This part is called the Elastic Clause for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Section 8 delegates enumerated powers, not limitless powers.

It's a shame people have such little respect for federal boundaries.
 
First Freedom...

He looked nervous as a whore in church at those meetings
Click to expand...

I lol'd. That description probably describes politics as a form of the world's oldest profession as well.:D:D:D


Epyon
 
RE:HughDamright

Read the 18th clause of Section 8. It has been called the elastic clause because Congress has interpeted it as giving themselves powers beyond what the rest of the Constitution gives them. The first four words of this clause are: "To make all laws".

Where in the Constitution is Congress or the Federal Government given authorization to be in the education business? Yet they are.

Don't underestimate the power of Congress.
 
I gotta go with WA on this one. If the Congress would pass an assault ban Bush has already said he would sign one. The real battle is in Congress. the NRA and other organizations still have a choke hold on anti-gun legislation in Congress making it a steep uphill battle for the antis who rattle their sabers once in a while. So if we keep congress that way the DemoPub presidential candidate who is elected will probably avoid that battle.

You guys can step up on the soap box and quote the Constitution all you want. Just make sure to vote to keep gun friendly reps in Congress.
 
There seems to be some confusion .... I thought the question was whether we as individuals believe that the US Constitution empowers the US Congress to pass a law which requires a person to demonstrate a need before owning a handgun ... and y'all seem to be saying that the US is empowered to do this, either by the interstate commerce clause or the elastic clause ... and I am left feeling as though I logged onto the Sarah Brady site by accident. :confused:

What do you mean "we can quote the Constitution all we want"? The question was about the Constitution, about whether it delegates a specific power ... so you can talk about politician's personalities all you want, the question wasn't about what Congress might actually do, the question was about whether or not we as individuals believe that the US Constitution empowers the US Congress to pass a law which requires a person to demonstrate a need before owning a handgun. My answer is "of course not".
 
belief:

What do you mean "we can quote the Constitution all we want"? The question was about the Constitution, about whether it delegates a specific power ... so you can talk about politician's personalities all you want, the question wasn't about what Congress might actually do, the question was about whether or not we as individuals believe that the US Constitution empowers the US Congress to pass a law which requires a person to demonstrate a need before owning a handgun. My answer is "of course not".
Click to expand...

reality:

You can quote the Second Amendment all day to Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer and others. How has that stopped them and others from proposing legislation to get rid of guns? You can preach the Second Amendment all day to Sarah Brady and where will it get you. How many years had DC had a gun ban? To some in Congress the value of the Constitution is about the same as the toilet paper they use.

We the People are what enforce the words on the paper called the Constitution. The Constitution will be a valid document as long as we keep the politicians in line. Once We the People dont care about it the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper.

You can talk theory and belief all you want. But you best get out and vote to keep Congress pro-gun.
 
Last edited:
and I am left feeling as though I logged onto the Sarah Brady site by accident.
Click to expand...

Actually we are unlike her place because WE allow competing views vis a vis the agendaites

WildasopposedtothemilitantlockstepAlaska TM
 
RE:HughDamright

The government seems to interpet the Constitiution anyway it pleases. Where in the Consitution is it written the the role of the US Supreme court is to make law? Yet, we know that is one of their roles.
 
You can talk theory and belief all you want. But you best get out and vote to keep Congress pro-gun.
Click to expand...

That gets easier if we do not have a Republican nominee for President who believes Congress has the kind of general regulatory power Rudy was talking about in the topic interview, and believes it should be used to regulate handgun ownership.
 
They have a general power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" but is setting nationwide standards for handgun ownership regulating commerce among the several states?

We don't need a Republican nominee who thinks that way. That's why we have Democrat nominees.
 
Re:Publius42

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution is as follows:"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."

Now read the entire Constitution and let me know where it mentions that education is part of the Federal Government's responsibility. I'll save you time, it doesn't. Therefore, according to the 10th amendment that responsibility should fall on each state.

Does the term "No Child Left Behind" ring a bell? It is Federal intrusion into education. So is Title IX and Title X. Which section of the Constitution does it mention abortions? Again, another state right has been hijacked by the Feds.

My point is that our Federal Government can do whatever wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top