Monon Trail rant

[lashicoN]

If States can ignore the Federal Constitution/Bill of Rights, what is the point of our Federal Government? Just to spend all our money?

 

[youngda9]

If States can ignore the Federal Constitution/Bill of Rights, what is the point of our Federal Government? Just to spend all our money?

That is what they do best

 

[T.Lex]

I thought the bedrock notion was that an individual state could not be more restrictive on individual rights than was allowed by the federal constitution.... but now you claim that states may pass laws which ignore the federal Bill of Rights. Which is it?

Well, ignoring the false dichotomy, it depends on WHEN you are talking about.

Right now, it is very complicated.

Back at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was simple, but less defined. I mean, the Constitution as it was drafted was a response to the Articles of Confederation. (Which, interestingly, IIRC didn't mention RKBA at all, or only indirectly?) The FF knew the country needed a stronger federal gov't, but were generally more intent on defining the limits of that body, not necessarily of the states.

The general idea, IMHO, was that states would be allowed to decide a great many things on their own. The 2A was a limitation specifically on the federal gov't - not on state gov't's. (See the 10th Am., the first reservation is to the States, then the People.)

For practical purposes, though, I don't think they ever really considered that a state would even want to significantly limit RKBA. They probably didn't think citizens would elect any legislator to do that!

But, again, and this is the narrow part with which I disagree. I think the FF would have admitted that states did retain the power to be more limiting than the federal gov't.

(BTW, it there any thread talking about the 17th Amendment? IMHO, that's where things started to REALLY go wrong....)

How many LOCAL courthouses have been forced by the federal government to remove religious posters or plaques from their property, because they supposedly violated the 1st Amendment?....

I could go on, but I would still like to know how the "living document" folks feel that states must strictly adhere to only 9 out of the 10 Amendments.

Don't know how many of "them" are really around these parts. But, I'll point out that many of your examples are rooted in the 14th Am., and I know this isn't the amendment you are excluding in your 9/10 point, but I humbly submit that the 9th and 10th are more abused today than the 2d. By a LONG margin....

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Since the 2A DOES exist and so does the 10A, it is my opinion that no state restrictions/laws in regards to firearms can exist constitutionally.

 

[T.Lex]

I will admit, that I do not understand your post, TJ, at least not without some reference to the 14A. I do not think the 10A says what you think it says....

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I will admit, that I do not understand your post, TJ, at least not without some reference to the 14A. I do not think the 10A says what you think it says....

The 10A says:
"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 since the 2A says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems as though the right to keep and bear arms is protected from state interference as well as federal, as it IS specifically covered by the COTUS. I see where 14 DOES apply and can be used to shore up my argument, but my argument seems sound enough in letter to stand upon it's own laurels.


ETA: I have 3 copies of the COTUS all from different publishers. I typed the 10th as it appears verbatim in all 3. Now upon close examination I am bothered that "State", "States", "United States" and Constitution are all capitalized but "people" is not. Can anyone explain this to me or am I reading too much into punctuation and capitalization? It appears this way throughout....Why are not the People worthy of capitalization?

 

[thompal]

The 10A says:
"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 since the 2A says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems as though the right to keep and bear arms is protected from state interference as well as federal, as it IS specifically covered by the COTUS. I see where 14 DOES apply and can be used to shore up my argument, but my argument seems sound enough in letter to stand upon it's own laurels.


ETA: I have 3 copies of the COTUS all from different publishers. I typed the 10th as it appears verbatim in all 3. Now upon close examination I am bothered that "State", "States", "United States" and Constitution are all capitalized but "people" is not. Can anyone explain this to me or am I reading too much into punctuation and capitalization? It appears this way throughout....Why are not the People worthy of capitalization?

Might it be that "people" are individuals, while "The People" might be the collective group?

 

[T.Lex]

Of course, it is impossible to know for sure 2 centuries later, exactly what they meant. Keep in mind, all of these were basically written by a committee. Just like now, the "final" language is the language that would getthe most votes for ratification.

Historically, though, the federal constitution was almost universally considered to only bind the federal government. So, the thing about the 10A is that the states had more flexibility to do their own thing than the feds.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Could it be that the COTUS doesn't apply to you and I, the people, but is rather nothing more than a contract between the feds and the states?

 

[Hammerhead]

I think I get what ThrottleJockey is saying. The 2A specifically says "the right of the people..." and the 10A says "reserved to the States, or to the people." Since the 2A specifically makes "the people" where the right is reserved to, the 2A means that any law, federal or state, is unconstitutional.

What gets me is that people say that the BoR limits the federal gov't. I believe (and I could be wrong) that the 1A says "Congress shall make no law..." I don't see those words in any of the other 9 in the BoR. I believe the 1A was written exactly like it was because they'd just fought a war against a tyrannical monarch who was doing exactly everything enumerated in the 1A. I don't believe the BoR is restricted to only the FedGov. I believe it restricts any law from anywhere, fed, state, local.

I'm no lawyer, judge, or constitutional scholar.

 

[T.Lex]

Could it be that the COTUS doesn't apply to you and I, the people, but is rather nothing more than a contract between the feds and the states?

Well, I think that's the right idea, but I think in the context of the times it was a contract ("social compact") between the people and the federal govt.

Article 4 defines the relationships of the states within the nation.

Also, I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar overall. Yes, there are parts of it that I know VERY well (one of the hazards of the job). But, these are my impressions from an overall interest in the subject.