Well, here goes Amendment IV & V Respectively

Quote from Antipitsa:
As we all know Gary, until the SCOTUS rules on whether or not the 2A is a personal right, and therefore it's being infringed, the current laws are Constitutional.
Click to expand...


Dear Antipitas:


No, if you don't mind, you can exclude me from the "…as we all know" crowd" because I totally reject that statement.

The founders did not intend the SCOTUS to be the final decision maker on it anyway. The Founders intended THE PEOPLE to be able to read the 2nd Amendment, in conjunction with Article VI, and not rely on nine politically appointed government employees to amend the Bill of Rights arbitrarily, according to their political viewpoints. That is why we have juries, so we can utilize jury nullification, if we decide there is an unfair or unjust instruction from a Judge, or too harsh or “cruel or unusual” punishments mandated.

Article VI sets forth that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, any other “not in pursuance” notwithstanding. So any law infringing on my right, be it my First, or Fourth is unconstitutional, and it is pretty simple to comprehend. The only time it becomes a clouded or confusing argument, is when one wishes to make the sentences say something they do not..

The lunacy of the argument (that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right) can only be compared with the sheer idiocy that our First Amendment right was meant as a collective right to insure only freedom of the press.

I personally am not going to let them talk me out of Article VI., and the 2nd Amendment.
 
Article VI sets forth that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, any other “not in pursuance” notwithstanding. So any law infringing on my right, be it my First, or Fourth is unconstitutional, and it is pretty simple to comprehend. The only time it becomes a clouded or confusing argument, is when one wishes to make the sentences say something they do not.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple to me.

First off, I believe that the way constitutionalism works is that a constitution frames a government and a BOR limits that government ... Virginia might pass a gun law which violates our own BOR, but it would not violate the BOR of California, New York, or the US.

Secondly, the supreme law of the land is that the US is limited to enumerated jurisdiction and other powers are reserved to each State. I believe that gun laws come under the police powers which are reserved to each State, so I disagree that any law infringing on a right violates the USBOR.

A federal government cannot have jurisdiction over fundamental individual rights such as the personal RKBA. That would be a national or State government.

But if I didn't know the first thing about constitutionalism or federalism, and if I had no respect for constitutional law, then I reckon I might take five minutes and read the USBOR and find it all too simple to conclude that it would be unconstitutional for anyone to infringe on anyone else's "rights".
 
It's not that simple to me.

First off, I believe that the way constitutionalism works is that a constitution frames a government and a BOR limits that government ... Virginia might pass a gun law which violates our own BOR, but it would not violate the BOR of California, New York, or the US.
Click to expand...

Hugh:

The constitution itself limits power of government, as does the bill of rights.

For example, Article II grants power to the President to "make" a treaty, but it limits that power in the same sentence, by requiring the President to obtain majority approval of the Senate to do it.

The 2nd Amendment is a law of the United States that would protect that Virginian from his rights being violated by the State, AND by the United States.

If it were not, then different states could determine their judges, or officers, did not have to pledge by oath or affirmation, to support the very document they are supposed to follow in their duty.

It only becomes difficult when we allow people to convince us that the founders meant for folks in one State to have less or more protections. If that were the case, then the Judges and Officers of every State, would not be required to swear or affirm an oath to the very Constitution itself, would it?
 
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."- Patrick Henry

I can't imagine why the government would want to take away these rights.


The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. - Samuel Adams


You may not want to ... but I suggest you seriously listen to the warnings from our ancestors who gave us the freedom we so easily take for granted .

Every elected official and military personal swears to protect the Constitution ..... some are betraying that vow.
 
Last edited:
Petre:
We must all start demanding our schools start teaching that the Constitution be read from Article I thru VII, and then, the Bill of Rights in order.
 
The 2nd Amendment is a law of the United States that would protect that Virginian from his rights being violated by the State, AND by the United States.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. That is simply not how it works. The USBOR limits the US, and the VABOR limits VA. Of course, the 14th "Amendment" has been used to apply certain aspects of the USBOR to the States, but the Second Amendment has not been incorporated.
 
I agree that the Constitution should be required reading. Then, people will start understanding that a good portion of what they "know" about how the system works ain't so. The government has a lot more restrictions on it than people realize (or is carried out), but the government also has a lot more authority than people realize, even if it doesn't act on it, or has subsequently restricted said authority through legislation.

For example, find out what the Constitution says about the President's authority as Commander in Chief, and Congress' authority to control the use of the military. You'll find out that much of the law restricting the President (including Posse Commitatus) is probably unconstitutional based on a strict reading of the Constitution.
 
You are mistaken. That is simply not how it works. The USBOR limits the US, and the VABOR limits VA. Of course, the 14th "Amendment" has been used to apply certain aspects of the USBOR to the States, but the Second Amendment has not been incorporated.
Click to expand...

Hugh, you are more mistaken, and have been misguided.

The very purpose of the IVth Amendment was to make certain that ALL PERSONS had the same rights under the First through the Fourteenth.

Blacks were denied the right to keep and bear arms (thus kinda helping to contribute to slavery) until the IVth INCORPORATED and CLARIFIED some things. Most of all was that all "persons" have the right to keep and bear arms.

What you are saying is that the 2nd Amendment does not apply in a State, unless a State says it does. If that is the case, how in hell can it be that you have a right to free speech in all states, and if a state government infringes upon those rights, you can seek redress by claiming your First Amendment rights were violated?

You might want to consider reading all the Articles in order of appearance, and then all the BOR, until you get the the IVTh.

I think it will help you understand that a State can violate your 2nd Amendment right, and the 2nd Amendment is a defense, just as is our IVth Amdendment right exists in state court, against self incrimination.

If only a few select BOR's count in state court as the Supreme Law of the Land, then none do.
 
There's a legal principle called selective incorporation. Only those rights which the Supreme Court has determined were intended (or should be in its opinion) to be incorporated via the 14th Amendment are, in fact, incorporated through said amendment.

The 2nd Amendment was originally only intended to restrict the national gov't's actions. The states retained the right under the 10th Amendment to regulate their citizenry within the bounds of the individual state constitutions. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated via the 14th Amendment, so it is inapplicable.

As for the 1st Amendment, it has been incorporated. That's why a state whose constitution is otherwise silent on the issue can't regulate your speech (except for certain circumstances).

We may not like it, but that's the law of the land.
 
Oh, and here I was thinking Article VI defined the law of the land. In fact, I thought it was the Supreme law of the land according to it's words.

All this time, I thought the civil war, and the IVth Amendment was intended (at least according to it's sponsor, that gentleman from Ohio) to clarify that a black was a "person", and therefore, one of the "People."

If you are correct, then they did not intend to clarify the inalienable right of a black man to be secure in his person, papers, house and effects, nor was he to be on par with a white man to keep and bear arms with which to defend his and his neighbors from tyranny.

All those guys who died during the civil war died for naught?

Darn.
 
All this time, I thought the civil war, and the IVth Amendment was intended (at least according to it's sponsor, that gentleman from Ohio) to clarify that a black was a "person", and therefore, one of the "People."
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the 14th Amendment? The 4th Amendment deals with full faith and credit and how each citizen shall be afforded equal treatment in each state as if a resident of said state.
 
Claire Wolf said it best: "It's too late to fix the system, and too early to shoot the b*stards."
The Constitution means whatever 5 (a majority of 9) ubershysters in black robes say it means. The BOR was swirling down the bowl a long time ago.
 
Where DOES one start? How bout at the constitution, and work your way forward. That work for you?

Do I remember Katrina? Yup. I also remember that despite the media calls and hype, it was the Governor of LA that would not call for federal aid. The law at that time required it, in order for the feds to interfere.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing our non biased media was the source for this claim. Neverthless, once the call for assistance was made, it wasn't answered for A WHILE, and what this has to do with the subject I have no idea. As for making a case that the government gives a damn about Katrina victims, it doesn't do much, however.

At least apply some logical reasoning to the law and what it says before making a determination as to its intent. If this were simply to aid citizens below the poverty level, which has ALWAYS been a chief concern of this administration, then why incorporate the authority of law enforcement? Do victims of natural disasters need to be arrested? Why add the ambiguous precursors for declaration of martial law, such as enforcement of federal law or a violation of federal protections, disallowing federal processes, etc.??? Hmmm???? What does this have to do with 5 feet of water in your house?

Were mistakes made? Yes. On both the State and Federal levels. And lest we forget, it was at the local level that the biggest mistakes were made. It was at the local level that the confiscations took place.
Click to expand...

Let's stay on the subject. Mistakes made/not made by local govmt. is not the topic of this thread. Martial law is. And your distinction between local vs. federal law enforcement confiscating weapons is meaningless. Did they occur? Yes or no? That answer would be YES. If it happened before it can happen again. That is the point. I hope you are not trying to say that the federal government would have reacted differently and will do so in the future. If those were federal troops that got fired on, the whole place may have been a big empty smoldering hole.

Despite the hype in this thread, there is a law in place that denies the Feds the ability to go after your guns, in an emergency. That law was passed in response to Katrina.
Click to expand...

Speaking of hype, there was a law in place prior to Katrina as well, supposedly denying the feds OR ANYBODY ELSE from going after your guns duing an emergency OR ANY OTHER TIME. It didn't stop anyone. And that's the point I wish to make here more than any other, that once this thing get's rolling, no one can stop it. That's not hype. That's a fact. That's why a law like this is so very dangerous, because if they don't go about things the right way, there is nothing anyone can do, short of all out rebellion, to stop them. Might makes right. Or it at least makes, "too bad, so sad." To assume that federal government is going to let up and respect everyone's rights where local law enforcement didn't is dangerous at best and foolish at worst. Best policy: DONT GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Furthermore, our greatest fears would seem to follow the MO of this administration to date: Do whatever you want, because what are they gonna do about it once it's done? I was a fan of the same mentality when I was a teenager stealing my sister's car, but this seems a little different, and I've matured since then. :)

Back to the subject, there were laws preventing the feds from doing lots of things, like wiretaps, intercepting e-mail, unauthorized searches, elimination of checks and balances, judicial review. Forgive me if protection of law isn't giving me a warm fuzzy feeling.


Despite the hype in this thread, this new law only improves Federal response time to an actual disaster. Again, a response to Katrina. What we don't know is if this particular rider will even stand up to challenge in the courts. I'm thinking it won't. But the fact remains, we simply don't know as yet. I would venture the opinion that in the case of a "made-up" disaster, the Governor of a that State would have some mighty strong opinions about Federal interference.
Click to expand...

I don't know who you work for, but you're fabulous. Actually, this statement is untrue. it doesn't ONLY improve federal response time to a disaster. Common sense can sort through this very quickly. If that were all that is needed, why is there no mention of somebody other than the president declaring a state of emergency? Why is it his call alone to make? Surely there is someone else in this country who can better determine when a disaster requiring federal relief is present. Point number two: why does it not say, "in the event of a natural disaster" instead of, "in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, epidemic, insurrection,
obstruction of federal processes, instances of civil unrest, stoppage of federally protected processes, carfire, lemonade stand burglary, etc??"

Anyone?

As far as the governor of a state protesting the action, you're damn right he or she will have something to say! Unfortunately, the way the law reads they have no recourse. :( Funny that. Why would it be necessary to hogtie the governor of a state in desperate need of help? Is this a big problem for us in this country, governors who don't care about the citizens of their state? Hmm. I would suspect the biggest problem any governor would have is the commandeering of the state's national guard to become a posse under command of the potus.

As for Martial Law, the Court has already provided for when it can be enacted and when it can't. Those precedents were set in response to the Civil War and its aftermath.
Click to expand...

That's correct. That's what we've been talking about. And this new law overrides all of it. And since when did this administration pay attention to anything the Court said anyway? And again, how is anyone, including the Court going to stop anything once it's underway?

The Sky Is Not Falling.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.
 
Let's try and remember that this isn't a "new law" but is an amendment of an existing law, namely the Insurrection Act. It's been around for quite some time, and used more than once. Yet, the Republic endures.
 
Gary Conner - Petre:
We must all start demanding our schools start teaching that the Constitution be read from Article I thru VII, and then, the Bill of Rights in order.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more Gary.

The things that made this the greatest country in the world are quickly and stealthily being swept away as the majority of America sleeps in bliss.
 
Quote:
All this time, I thought the civil war, and the IVth Amendment was intended (at least according to it's sponsor, that gentleman from Ohio) to clarify that a black was a "person", and therefore, one of the "People."

Are you talking about the 14th Amendment? The 4th Amendment deals with full faith and credit and how each citizen shall be afforded equal treatment in each state as if a resident of said state.
Click to expand...

Quoted from Buzz Knox's post

Just noticed your question Buzz:

Yes, I was talking about the XIV, and I mistakenly typed XV instead of the XIV.

Sorry.

The XIVth establishes any “person” born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizens, and that "No State shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens" of the U.S.

That was the point I was making about the civil war, and how it incorporates ALL the protections of the Constitution for all citizens against laws infringing on their right to keep and bear arms, or their Vth Amendment rights, etc.

Sorry for the mixup.
 
That was the point I was making about the civil war, and how it incorporates ALL the protections of the Constitution for all citizens against laws infringing on their right to keep and bear arms, or their Vth Amendment rights, etc.
Click to expand...
The 14th was intended to give blacks and whites equal rights, it has been used to do much more than that, but it has not incorporated the entire BOR and specifically the 2nd has not been incorporated.
 
The 14th was intended to give blacks and whites equal rights, it has been used to do much more than that, but it has not incorporated the entire BOR and specifically the 2nd has not been incorporated.
Click to expand...

Hugh:



I believe that the XIVth clarified the right of "all persons" the liberties set forth in the following sentence:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereofr, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunites of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."

The second Amendment is a law. It doesn't take a legal scholar, nor a Supreme Court Justice to understand that fact.

And the reason it is a law, is because it is the Supreme Law of the Land, according to Article VI thereof.

Now since the very intent of the XIVth, (inarguably I would hope you would admit) was to establish that blacks were citizens of the United States.

It did not take a Supreme Court decision to determine the XIVth did that. It just did it. And it went on to establish "...equal protection under the laws."

They were granted equal status which no State could deny by that Amendment, and on the very same document just twelve paragraphs previous they were well aware, that another amendment stated they can not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed in any way.

Do you believe the Legislative intent by John Bingham and the rest of Congress, by adopting that Amendment back in 1866, believed it was Constitutionally legal after the Amendment passed, for a State to bar a (black or white) person from "keeping and bearing arms" until such time as nine lawyers (at some point in time after 2006) came along and "incorporated" it into being?

I don't.
 
Do you believe the Legislative intent by John Bingham and the rest of Congress, by adopting that Amendment back in 1866, believed it was Constitutionally legal after the Amendment passed, for a State to bar a (black or white) person from "keeping and bearing arms" until such time as nine lawyers (at some point in time after 2006) came along and "incorporated" it into being?

I don't.
Click to expand...
This is the best synopsis of the "incorporation doctrine" fraud I have ever seen. Thanks for posting it.
 
Gary, this is one point that I will agree with you on. :eek:

The ruling on The Slaughterhouse Cases is perhaps one of the worst rulings to come down the pike. The majority simply wrote out of the amendment the "privileges and immunities" clause by judicial fiat. They have flatly refused to revisit this case and instead have gone with this "selective incorporation" theory ever since.

The presumption was and is, that the Congress never intended to overwrite the tenth amendment and interfere with the states on a wholesale basis. The historical facts of the time explicitly deny this presumption.

Having said that, I note that I have just contributed to the trend of thread veer. The 14th is off topic. Perhaps another thread would serve better for this particular ball of wax?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top