We Win!

[SWOHFAL]

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/

[renaissance_warrior]

Yeeehawwwwwwwwww! I'm at the SCOTUSBLOG right now reading up on it. God save the Republic and bye bye Brady!

[ephv]

renaissance_warrior posted--

Yeeehawwwwwwwwww! I'm at the SCOTUSBLOG right now reading up on it. God save the Republic and bye bye Brady!


I believe your celebration is not actually one which saves the republic. It is in reality an attack on the republic. Under the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, the states were free to ban firearms if they so wished. It was the central government that was restricted. That relationship constituted our republic.

Now the restriction on the central government has been extended to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. We may see it as a victory for gun rights but it has as unintended consequences, further erosion of the republic. The Constitution was to be a document to restrict and empower by enumeration the central government and list the few areas in which the states gave up limited sovereignty for the common welfare of the states.

Ever since the 14th, the states have been relagated to inferior status. This is another crack in the wall protecting the states and their citizens from the over reaching central government.

We rejoice too quickly while not seeing its dangers. I do not favor states restricting gun rights but to remove their ability to do so opens the door for national laws of harassment by Congress. The new SCOTUS decision grants favored openings by declaring lesser restrictions may be legal.

They have given their blessing to ammunition bans, location usage, who can own, age restrictions, etc. These areas may be in use now but SCOTUS has now granted federal cover to nationalize them. When that happens, we cannot cross state lines to seek freedom as the people in Chicago could by moving to Texas or Georgia, or Alaska, et. al.

To understand this more clearly, examine the DC response to the Heller decision. Think you can own or carry a gun in DC?

[renaissance_warrior]

Good points, but I don't view a right being upheld as a restriction, quite the opposite.

[mutter]

ephv, I don't get your analysis in your first paragraph.

The states were never given authority to ban firearms in any way shpe or form.

The 10th amendment clearly stood as an explanation of the limitations and allocation of specific areas of authority on the feds and the states. The 14th amendment just reiterated the 10th and gave stated legal status to blacks so they could enjoy the same rights guaranteed under the constitution that were being denied to them by the southern "Democrats".

Any gun control law whether referencing actual firearms, ammunition or accessories is a clear violation of the 2nd, 10th, and 14th amendments.

Just my 2 cents.

Mutter

[Heat]

What exactly did we 'win'?
waiting for facts, text..analysis

[renaissance_warrior]

I posted the opinion link in RKBA where it belongs. :shades:

[Survey Punk]

Limbaugh made an interesting point when he noted it was a 5 to 4 vote.
Four of the justices voted the second amendment doesn't mean what it says.
Our very existence is tenuous.

JB

[V guy]

The right to own firearms and the right to self defense was not invented by the States or Federal Government.
It was an old pre-existing right, that the MAGNA CARTA shoved up the ass of the king, back in merry old England.

The basic rights to self defense and gunownership cannot now be "infringed" by the states or the Feds. I fail to comprehend your anaylsis that this is a loss in rights, rather than a total victory.

The SCOTUS, after the Civil War, with the 14th amendment expanded Federalism, both for bad and good.

Todays court wants to restrict Federalism's Interstate Commerce Clause's "overreaching".

The fact that the court has made the BoR's restrictions against the Federal Government, also restrictions against States, Cities, and villages, is a total victory of the rights in the Magna Carta, laid out so long ago.

We are greater for this decision, both individually and commonly.

F*** Bloomburg and Obama.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by Survey Punk
Limbaugh made an interesting point when he noted it was a 5 to 4 vote.
Four of the justices voted the second amendment doesn't mean what it says.
Our very existence is tenuous.

JB

However, it is more than we had before and sets a precedent that has to be reversed, one that builds upon another precedent in Heller.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by Heat
What exactly did we 'win'?
waiting for facts, text..analysis

A small victory.

[Heat]

Originally posted by SWOHFAL


A small victory.
Looks so..will be interesting to hear/read opinions in the coming weeks/months

[Topbanana]

Weak sauce ruling, the Brady's are running with it. :mad:

[johnny.308]

214 pages boils down to total bans are unconstitutional, but "reasonable" restrictions are O.K.

Does anyone have a reasonable definition of reasonable?

[Topbanana]

"shall not be infringed" does not leave room for reasonable restriction. :o :o :o

[juanni]

Originally posted by Topbanana
"shall not be infringed" does not leave room for reasonable restriction. :o :o :o

Bullseye. :whiskey:



..............juanni

[V guy]

A common national standard will be coming, to buy a handgun.

For example, NYS's pistol permit law is totally unconstitutional.

Currently, to apply for a NYS permit, you must obtain the signatures of 4 white men who have known you personally, for at least 5 years, who preferrably are ALSO pistol permit holders.
They have to certify that you are fit to own a handgun.
Nuts.

How many black men have known 4 armed white men for 5 years, who would sign the permit application in the first place? Why is that even necessary?

Tell me that there are more than 2 black men in the state who hold pistol permits, who are not cops already.
The NYS law clearly discriminates against black men.

NY is not a shall issue state and sometimes it takes up to 5 years to be rejected or accepted, even if you are white.

Again, "how many black men have known 4 armed white men for 5 years, who would sign the permit application in the first place?" Why is that even necessary? 5 years?
Many marriages do not last 5 years.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was written in 1868, to end just such anti black laws, in the former Confederacy.
I guess that NYS thinks that its shit don't stink.

NY also requires a pistol handling course to even have a permit. OK
NY also requires a permit to even buy a pistol. Not ok
NYS does NOT automatically give you a concealed carry permit, even though that is what the permit says when you get it.
What???

The local County Judge, who is the issuing authority, and pistol God, stamped it "hunting, target, hiking, camping".
What?

Pennsylvania requires you to notify them if you buy a pistol.
A Penn concealed carry is "shall issue."

The Carolinas have the rule that the sheriff must give you a coupon to buy a handgun. What if the sheriff don't like you?

Obviously, all local restrictions must end up being either "shall issue" or "rejected" for cause, in the end.

I figure 5 years from now we will have essentially have a universal carry law.
This will come from Federal Court decisions that come from NYS, NJ, DC, etc.

[flopshot]

so what outrage would we see if the decision was on the first ammendment ?
as long as society is permitted to question the definition of "people", "keep and bare", "arms" and "infringed" we have no security in the second.
so far this country has done a fair job in redefining 'racism' so i see it as just a matter of time before more lines are drawn resulting in more restriction and control.

[AndyC]

Originally posted by V guy
Currently, to apply for a NYS permit, you must obtain the signatures of 4 white men who have known you personally, for at least 5 years
Where did you find that? I can only find something which says "have people willing to be character references."

[ephv]

mutter posted--

ephv, I don't get your analysis in your first paragraph.

The states were never given authority to ban firearms in any way shpe or form.

The 10th amendment clearly stood as an explanation of the limitations and allocation of specific areas of authority on the feds and the states. The 14th amendment just reiterated the 10th and gave stated legal status to blacks so they could enjoy the same rights guaranteed under the constitution that were being denied to them by the southern "Democrats".

Any gun control law whether referencing actual firearms, ammunition or accessories is a clear violation of the 2nd, 10th, and 14th amendments.

Just my 2 cents.

Mutter


The states didn't need to be given the authority to ban guns under the 1789 Constitution or even when the Bill of Rights was ratified. According to the 10th Amendment, they reserve that right because it was not denied them in the Constitution.

Also, until this week, the 14th Amendment (passed 80 years after the Constitution) had never been applied to the 2nd so the states were free to act on the original understanding of the Constitution. Now the federalism framed under the 10th is gone. We have suffered a reduction in our republic, not a liberation.

The 14th did not reiterate the 10th which declared the states as sovereign; it removed sovereignty and granted it to the central government.

[ephv]

posted--

Good points, but I don't view a right being upheld as a restriction, quite the opposite.

Any time you transfer the protection of a "right" to the central government, you lose. We were to be a nation of local control- not central. Now the right to guns is federal. The Bill of Rights was a restriction on the federal government in respect to guns. Now the restriction has been federalized as pertains to the states. We lose.

Watch for nationalization of laws which restrict CCW.

Personally, I like the idea of local control and local pressure by voters. Move it to Washington and a schizophrenic SCOTUS and you have a loss of liberty.

[ephv]

V guy posted--

The right to own firearms and the right to self defense was not invented by the States or Federal Government.
It was an old pre-existing right, that the MAGNA CARTA shoved up the ass of the king, back in merry old England.

The basic rights to self defense and gunownership cannot now be "infringed" by the states or the Feds. I fail to comprehend your anaylsis that this is a loss in rights, rather than a total victory.

The SCOTUS, after the Civil War, with the 14th amendment expanded Federalism, both for bad and good.

Todays court wants to restrict Federalism's Interstate Commerce Clause's "overreaching".

The fact that the court has made the BoR's restrictions against the Federal Government, also restrictions against States, Cities, and villages, is a total victory of the rights in the Magna Carta, laid out so long ago.

We are greater for this decision, both individually and commonly.

F*** Bloomburg and Obama.


The Magna Charta is dead and so is the British constitution of 1689 which specifically grants the right to weapons for self defense. Go to Britain to day and see the respect given to the Magna Carta and constitution. The peope hae been declawed.

Much the same can be said of our Constitution. Any assault on federalism is a loss.

[V guy]

Hahaha!!

Andy, If you had an NYS application in front of you, it would be clear.

First, to even get a "packet", you have to go see the local pistol permit officer, who may or may not give you the packet of forms.

He will ask if you are a resident of this county and for how long. Not long enough means wait 6 months. And he says that he hopes you make friends quickly, with a smile.
He will ask have a record. If you say, no I don't think so, maybe a speeding ticket, he will ask if you were ever stopped for a DUI or any drinking offense or ever had a fight. If you say, yes, ---"no packet".

Once you get the packet, the forms clearly state in the references section:

"Have under the penalty of perjury, known the applicant for over 5 years and can certifly as to his competence, honesty and fitness to own a firearm or handgun?" Be aware that any affirmation will be subject to judicial scrutiny".

That is done of the signatories by the Pistol Permit officer for the county Judge and is a short background investigation of the signatory. Less than 5 years acquaintenship is perjury. Go to jail.

Whoa, baby!!

Now how many black men without records and with pistol permits can you find in most counties in NYS? Not many.

That is why I say it takes 4 white men with permits who have known the black guy for 5 years, and not in a penitentiary setting.
Then you have to go to a pistol school and pass. You have to be fingerprinted and have your record checked. Then is all the forms are in order, you wait and wait and wait and wait and no amt of calling will help anything out.

The 14th amendment's intention not to allow discrimination against former slaves should now crush the NYS Pistol Permit laws, once and for all, along with "McDonald".

[ephv]

Never under estimate the ability of Democrats to find new ways to disarm the people and make them serfs again.

Mayor Daley, City Council, Guns and No Blammo
Daley Vows New Gun Ordinances


As expected, Mayor Daley and Chicago's City Council are circling the wagons to defend against an unfavorable decision by the Supreme Court concerning the city's gun ban.

Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago.

"We'll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon," Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.

"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

The Supreme Court did not overturn Chicago's gun ban outright, but sent the case challenging it, McDonald vs. the City of Chicago, back to the lower courts for a final decision.

Once that comes, the city should have new ordinances in place to limit gun ownership.

After SCOTUS eliminated the D.C. ban, the city put in place dozens of regulations surrounding handgun ownership. Prospective gun owners in D.C. now are required to take training courses that include spending one hour on a firing range and several hours in a classroom learning about gun safety. They also must pass a 20-question test based on D.C.'s firearm laws.

Since the ban was lifted in D.C., just over 800 guns have been registered in city. The relatively low total comes as the district passed the slew of new requirements that also include being fingerprinted and taking ballistic tests, which could help police track bullets back to specific guns if needed.

"We are digesting the 200 pages and will have something tomorrow to stand up to the court's ruling," says Ald. Anthony Beale, chairman of Police and Fire Co. Committee on Chicago's City Council.

City officials warned against a run on guns.

"I would urge anyone buying a gun at this time to wait," said Chicago Attorney Mara Georges.

The city is expected to take steps similar to what D.C. enacted after its gun ban was shot down.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html#ixzz0sCcwl5Y3

[Right Side Up]

ephv, there would have never been a need for the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation of the BOR against the States by SCOTUS if the States had not trampled its citizens rights.

The States were incompetent and got spanked. Get over it.

There was a problem, and it got fixed, one right at a time.

[ephv]

Right Side Up posted--

ephv, there would have never been a need for the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation of the BOR against the States by SCOTUS if the States had not trampled its citizens rights.

The States were incompetent and got spanked. Get over it.

There was a problem, and it got fixed, one right at a time.


I'm not too sure as to why you feel the need to be nasty or why you think I disagree with your reasoning as to the purpose of the 14th but civil discourse on the FAL Board is one area we should all strive to.

You may welcome greater federal control over your life but I for one cleave to liberty and local control.

It was, BTW, the Democrats who tried to disarm the freed slaves and relegate them to slave status. They brought on the loss of freedom. Today it is the Democrats who again try to disarm the people which brings in the nationalization of laws and the loss of freedom.

Let's keep the focus on the current loss of liberty and the assault on federalism.

[Right Side Up]

I was *nasty*? :rolleyes: You sure are sensitive.

The Democrats of old are nothing like todays, you know that, and are just being a sophist by saying they are the same. Gosh you are such a sheep. And thanks for treating me like an illiterate. :confused:


Here is my commemoration of the Feds telling the States to respect the 2nd Amendment a little bit more than they have in the past 224 years:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1760/pre29.jpg

[ephv]

And thanks for treating me like an illiterate.

No problem. It was easy. :wink:

Question- Why were the states supposed to respect the 2nd when it was written by the states as a restriction upon the central government. It was not a restriction on the states. (Until now)

[Right Side Up]

Originally posted by ephv
And thanks for treating me like an illiterate.

No problem. It was easy. :wink:

Question- Why were the states supposed to respect the 2nd when it was written by the states as a restriction upon the central government. It was not a restriction on the states. (Until now)

Thanks for the insult. I don't care.

I have a question for you. If the States are so great then why did such a bastion of freedom, Virginia, not even enumerate the RKBA until 1976?

It's a rhetorical question, so don't bother with your drivel.

The fact is, if not for the U.S. government, the Constitution would have very little influence in the state courts.

[renaissance_warrior]

Well like Animal Farm, 'some states are more equal than others'. :shades:

[Bama Steve]

The BOR is an "all or nothing" proposition.
The states agreed to a set of rules and the rules just got applied to the states - like it or not.

It isn't a Federal control thing - it is what the states agreed to do but did not apply evenly because it did not suit their purposes in the past.

There is nothing but good in this decision concerning the 2nd.

Debate all y'all wish too . . .

It ain't personal, just a reality which is long over-due.

You guys knew that.

Game-on - GCA '68 is next followed by that heinous POS started in 1934 . . .

I love it all - keeps me awake and alert.

[renaissance_warrior]

I'm with you on that. you may want to substitute the 'Awake and alert' to 'Always aware'. I forget the latin corollary.

[shlomo]

Originally posted by Bama Steve
The BOR is an "all or nothing" proposition.
The states agreed to a set of rules and the rules just got applied to the states - like it or not.

It isn't a Federal control thing - it is what the states agreed to do but did not apply evenly because it did not suit their purposes in the past.



I believe you are misguided here, friend 'Bama. FWIW, I reluctantly agree with ephv.

[ephv]

Right Side Up posted--

The fact is, if not for the U.S. government, the Constitution would have very little influence in the state courts.


Exactly and that is preciously the point made during arguments over ratification. The central government was to have as little influence as possible in state courts, government, and social affairs.

Today we have at least two generations raised in government indoctrination centers that have been led to believe America is great and its economy was strong because of the federal government.

BTW, your statement should be turned around-
If it weren't for the states as creator of the US government and the Constitution which was drafted by the states (in Congress), there would be no US government to meddle in the affairs of the states.

The federal government is not sovereign in America. The states are. To believe the states created a government to force them to comply with demands by its servant does not stand up to historical evidence.

This is the precise purpose of the 10th Amendment. It was to keep the creature in its place but by ignoring that part of the Bill of Rights we have opened Pandora's box and unleashed the Hounds of Hell upon us.

[ephv]

posted--

The BOR is an "all or nothing" proposition.
The states agreed to a set of rules and the rules just got applied to the states - like it or not.

It isn't a Federal control thing - it is what the states agreed to do but did not apply evenly because it did not suit their purposes in the past.


The Bill of Rights was added to ensure, in writing, certain restriction on the new central government.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

The "rules" were not to apply to the states- they were to apply to the new government because the people feared and distrusted government that was out of reach.

As revealed by the 10th Amendment, all powers/rights were assigned to the people and their states unless specially denied by the new Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

[TheJokker]

Originally posted by ephv
renaissance_warrior posted--

[b]Ye
Now the restriction on the central government has been extended to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. We may see it as a victory for gun rights but it has as unintended consequences, further erosion of the republic. The Constitution was to be a document to restrict and empower by enumeration the central government and list the few areas in which the states gave up limited sovereignty for the common welfare of the states.

Ever since the 14th, the states have been relagated to inferior status. This is another crack in the wall protecting the states and their citizens from the over reaching central government.

We rejoice too quickly while not seeing its dangers. I do not favor states restricting gun rights but to remove their ability to do so opens the door for national laws of harassment by Congress. The new SCOTUS decision grants favored openings by declaring lesser restrictions may be legal.

They have given their blessing to ammunition bans, location usage, who can own, age restrictions, etc. These areas may be in use now but SCOTUS has now granted federal cover to nationalize them. When that happens, we cannot cross state lines to seek freedom as the people in Chicago could by moving to Texas or Georgia, or Alaska, et. al.

To understand this more clearly, examine the DC response to the Heller decision. Think you can own or carry a gun in DC?

the restriction on the federal government will come from the necessity to reduce the budget. not only programs will need to be cut but entire departments. take away the money from the feds and you take away it's power.

[Bama Steve]

Originally posted by shlomo


I believe you are misguided here, friend 'Bama. FWIW, I reluctantly agree with ephv.

You may correct but my position is curable, isn't it?

:wink:

[Bama Steve]

Originally posted by ephv
posted--

The BOR is an "all or nothing" proposition.
The states agreed to a set of rules and the rules just got applied to the states - like it or not.

It isn't a Federal control thing - it is what the states agreed to do but did not apply evenly because it did not suit their purposes in the past.


The Bill of Rights was added to ensure, in writing, certain restriction on the new central government.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

The "rules" were not to apply to the states- they were to apply to the new government because the people feared and distrusted government that was out of reach.

As revealed by the 10th Amendment, all powers/rights were assigned to the people and their states unless specially denied by the new Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

How does one reconcile that against the Supremacy clause, ephv?

I have never gotten a suitable explanation for this circular logic.

[shlomo]

Originally posted by Bama Steve


How does one reconcile that against the Supremacy clause, ephv?

I have never gotten a suitable explanation for this circular logic.

If I may presume to jump in, it is because the Constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof) were intended to be limited to the powers enumerated in that document. This is why the tenth was added--to clarify that point.

I am sure that ephv will be along later with a more vivid and expansive explanation than my poor comment.

[Bama Steve]

Originally posted by shlomo


If I may presume to jump in, it is because the Constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof) were intended to be limited to the powers enumerated in that document. This is why the tenth was added--to clarify that point.

I am sure that ephv will be along later with a more vivid and expansive explanation than my poor comment.

Just for clarity - United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[shlomo]

Originally posted by Bama Steve


Just for clarity - United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That's right, Steve. Think of it this way: The several States (each a nation in its own right, with plenary powers in all cases whatsoever) got together and created an agent, the federal government, and the states ceded SOME of their sovereign powers to that body to exercise collectively. The states retained all other powers over affairs within their own borders. This is explicit in the ninth and tenth amendments.

The supremacy clause merely acknowledges that the enumerated powers given to the agent government were supreme under the Constitution, and may not be ignored or countermanded by an act of a state legislature or court.

The following is a favorite, from US v Butler (1935), which stuck down certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of the New Deal:

" If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns. P. 297 U. S. 75."

An interesting sentiment, in view of where we are now.

Gotta go and put my shoulder to the wheel. I'll look in later.

[ephv]

Bama Steve posted--

How does one reconcile that against the Supremacy clause, ephv?

I have never gotten a suitable explanation for this circular logic.


We have been around this tree before. The only suitable explanation you will accept is to get an answer which says the Constitution says something it does not say, namely that the central government is supreme in everything and the states are subordinate. That answer, however, does not agree with the 10th.

The supremacy clause says that in all instances where the central government performs its delegated duties, the states are subordinate. Any power granted to the federal government by the Constitution is a power superior to the states. This does not infer the federal government is supreme in all cases- only those in which the Constitution specifically grants it authority.

To add restrictive clarification, the Bill of Rights included the 10th Amendment which puts a wall against federal over-reach and states any and all powers and rights not granted (enumerated) by the Constitution to the central government are reserved to the states and the people.

The supremacy clause only states the same thing in reverse. In all cases wherein the federal government exercises its authorized powers, it is supreme.

Put the two together and they tell us what we should clearly understand. Namely- The states are supreme in all cases of power and rights except those enumerate in the Constitution as belonging to the central government.

Notice the clause itself"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...

Laws made in pursuance to the Constitution. Not laws made according to the desires of Congress. All laws, to be supreme, must be made in accordance to the dictates of the Constitution.

[ephv]

shlomo posted--

The supremacy clause merely acknowledges that the enumerated powers given to the agent government were supreme under the Constitution, and may not be ignored or countermanded by an act of a state legislature or court.

Good point. According to Justice Story (1811-1845) the main concern of supremacy was what entangled the states under the Confederation. Each state could, according to the Articles of Confederation, veto any actions by the central government. Twelve could want legislation but one could say no!

This effectively granted each state supremacy over the other twelve. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution put a stop to that process.

[Bama Steve]

Originally posted by ephv
Bama Steve posted--

How does one reconcile that against the Supremacy clause, ephv?

I have never gotten a suitable explanation for this circular logic.


We have been around this tree before. The only suitable explanation you will accept is to get an answer which says the Constitution says something it does not say, namely that the central government is supreme in everything and the states are subordinate. That answer, however, does not agree with the 10th.

The supremacy clause says that in all instances where the central government performs its delegated duties, the states are subordinate. Any power granted to the federal government by the Constitution is a power superior to the states. This does not infer the federal government is supreme in all cases- only those in which the Constitution specifically grants it authority.

To add restrictive clarification, the Bill of Rights included the 10th Amendment which puts a wall against federal over-reach and states any and all powers and rights not granted (enumerated) by the Constitution to the central government are reserved to the states and the people.

The supremacy clause only states the same thing in reverse. In all cases wherein the federal government exercises its authorized powers, it is supreme.

Put the two together and they tell us what we should clearly understand. Namely- The states are supreme in all cases of power and rights except those enumerate in the Constitution as belonging to the central government.

Notice the clause itself"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...

Laws made in pursuance to the Constitution. Not laws made according to the desires of Congress. All laws, to be supreme, must be made in accordance to the dictates of the Constitution.

Sometimes one must ask a question numerous times until one receives an answer/explanation which makes compelling sense.

Your current reply just helped me make the mental link quite nicely.

Thanks for the effort - I have no doubt that I was not the only one who learned something from this.

Maybe you should go and explain all this to the SCOTUS so they can reverse their many decisions to apply the BOR upon the States?

Just a thought.

[Right Side Up]

Originally posted by ephv
Right Side Up posted--

The fact is, if not for the U.S. government, the Constitution would have very little influence in the state courts.


Exactly and that is preciously the point made during arguments over ratification. The central government was to have as little influence as possible in state courts, government, and social affairs.

Today we have at least two generations raised in government indoctrination centers that have been led to believe America is great and its economy was strong because of the federal government.

BTW, your statement should be turned around-
If it weren't for the states as creator of the US government and the Constitution which was drafted by the states (in Congress), there would be no US government to meddle in the affairs of the states.

The federal government is not sovereign in America. The states are. To believe the states created a government to force them to comply with demands by its servant does not stand up to historical evidence.

This is the precise purpose of the 10th Amendment. It was to keep the creature in its place but by ignoring that part of the Bill of Rights we have opened Pandora's box and unleashed the Hounds of Hell upon us.

The derelection of state legislatures concerning its citizens freedom...aka civil rights.......prompted the central government to fill the void. If the states had only observed peoples rights to start with........ we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Now, I'm going to go pop a beer, sit back, fondle my Smith Pre-29*, and contemplate all of the individual rights I enjoy because my Federal Government went to bat for me.

You can go lament over the 10th Amendment being the banner of a lost cause, which histrocally has been denial of inalienable rights.


*Which has special meaning to me,because I took possession of it the very day, June 28th, that the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

[renaissance_warrior]

To ephv and shlomo, I want to thank you for your clarifications on something very dear to all here. You have established and submitted a lot of common sense to a rather rather complex issue to a non-lawyer.

As I see it, it will take the courts, and actions by plaintiffs for years to come to sort it all out. Maybe before I die, Miller V. US 1934 may be overturned.

[Bama Steve]

Originally posted by renaissance_warrior
To ephv and shlomo, I want to thank you for your clarifications on something very dear to all here. You have established and submitted a lot of common sense to a rather rather complex issue to a non-lawyer.

As I see it, it will take the courts, and actions by plaintiffs for years to come to sort it all out. Maybe before I die, Miller V. US 1934 may be overturned.

I'd like to echo RW's sentiments here at this point - I meant no slight to anyone in any of my posts; I'm just trying to make sense of this convoluted and perverted course of history which brought us to this event.

At least I seek the truth instead of ignoring it all . . . as many of us here do - some are more vocal than others. (I really do give a shit, BTW).

:biggrin:

Shlomo - I thank you as well. (I already thanked ephv, and was sincere in that response).

Given the current state of affairs, I cannot see a better finding by the SCOTUS regardless of the potential negative precedence it may have set; they were set over 100 years ago - this was an effort by a slim majority to right the tables in our favor and they used it well, IMHO.

I also agree with RSU's position, heartily.

I still stand by my position that this was a good call by the SCOTUS.

(Time to crack a cold-one).

:beer:

[ephv]

Bama Steve posted--

Maybe you should go and explain all this to the SCOTUS so they can reverse their many decisions to apply the BOR upon the States?


I have had people offer to buy me a one way ticket out of town but I don't think this is what they meant. :wink:

I appreciate your willingness for open discussion. You're an honest man.:beer:

[ephv]

Bama Steve posted--

I still stand by my position that this was a good call by the SCOTUS.


You are probably correct. It is as good (or even better) than we could have expected.

[Bama Steve]

ephv,

How do you pee so high up that "tree" we have "been around before"?

I couldn't reach that high but I could understand you . . .

Best wishes, "Dummy".

:rofl:





:wink:

[Firestarter]

Don't like 44 states have a RKBA clause written into their constitutions?

Sounds like SCOTUS was just reinforcing this and telling the rest of the stragglers to get on board. :tongue:

[shlomo]

Originally posted by Firestarter
Don't like 44 states have a RKBA clause written into their constitutions?

Sounds like SCOTUS was just reinforcing this and telling the rest of the stragglers to get on board. :tongue:

The particulars of the right to keep and bear arms have always been up to local government until now.

The Constitution did not grant that right to "the people", it merely prohibited the federal government from infringing what was at that time recognized as a natural right. (Allegedly. We can see today how well a constitutional prohibition works when government is lawless).

What was once a local matter has now been federalized. The bad part is that in both McDonald and Heller, the Court said that the right is subject to exceptions and "reasonable" restrictions. We will now begin the long process of haggling in the courts as to what a "reasonable" restriction is, and how far the fedgov can go with those restrictions.