Ron in Toledo
New member
Constitutional Carry is worth 'keeping on the front burner'- a battle worth all out efforts because it is a RIGHT !
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Help Fight For Right:
- Thread starter Ron in Toledo
- Start date
Constitutional Carry should be a national issue not a state one.
States should not have a say in what is in the Constitution.
That's is what the tenth amendment is for.
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.
The 2nd was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
The courts I believe wrongly let states have it back.
Mike
I certainly dont want more Federal Judges, Scotus and Federal House and Senators and lobbyists screwing with guns laws. They have done such a crappy job w everything else they touch. Where does it say healthcare, gay rights, manufacture of guns, control of the internet, and abortion in the Constitution is purview of Feds? The 2A has made great progress as it stands - sure dont want a oppty where Bloomberg can throw $100 million to get all the Federal ****** to agree and restrict gun rights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jeff. State
Banned
Unbelievable comment by a moderator on a RKBA forum.
The States cannot write laws that supersede the Constitution!
Grapeshot, how the hell do YOU interpret..... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"????
Seriously I really cant believe you said what you said. Do YOU think our RKBA should be regulated/restricted?
The 2nd Amendment IS Constitutional carry, it is all we should need from Boston to Los Angeles and everywhere in between to carry open, concealed, handgun or long gun.
Last edited:
Actually the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not delegated to it.
In this case I do not "interpret" - I report.
Whether we like it or not our RKBA is not total, pure, unadulterated. There is a difference in the laws from state to state - rants to the contrary notwithstanding - that's why it was moved.
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Being from NJ, I can relate to your state to state comment.
NJ, does not even acknowledge the 2A in its own State Constitution...
My .02
CCJ
Last edited:
Jeff. State
Banned
I'm sorry Grapeshot, but your explanation would allow States to defy all the protections in the Bill of Rights. Heck why do we even refer to the Constitution if this is the case?
Because they currently get away with it does not make OK.
Because they currently get away with it does not make OK.
Would you mind suggesting a way, or two or three, to remedy that situation that do not involve a massive reset?
All y'all go on and on about absolutism interpretation of "shall not be infringed" without the first word about how to remove, repeal, rescind and otherwise remedy all the infringements that have been done to date. Fer instanse, how to you plan to keep all the constitutionalists you manage to elect in office until you elect enough of them to over-ride a presedential veto or re-write legislation that will overcome the objections that SCOTUS raises. Speaking of which, how do you plan to replace those activist justices, along with the ones at lower levels?
Humpty Dumpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice:
stay safe.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Agree 100%. One of the things I DO want the fed to actually do is prevent states from stealing rights. Pretty much the exact opposite of what happens right now.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Well not since McDonald v. Chicago. States can only add to your Federal constitutional rights; they cannot pass constitutional amendments that restrict the rights you receive under the Federal Constitution.
Werz
Regular Member
Exactly. The Second Amendment applies to the States, not because of the Second Amendment, but because of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is true only because of the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to incorporate the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment (as it did in McDonald v. Chicago), which it can do because the Constitution of the United States grants the Supreme Court of the United States the right to final interpretation of the Constitution under Article III, Sections 1 and 2.
The folks around here may only read the Second Amendment (and maybe the Fourth Amendment), but they need to understand that there's a whole lot more to the United States Constitution.
Werz, I'm not looking for an argument but would like someone to be able to provide a specific quote from the Constitution that grants the PRIVILEGE (not a right as government isn't alive, cannot posses or confer rights) of Judicial Review to the Supreme Court. AFAIK, the Court usurped that privilege in 1803 and Thomas Jefferson was none too happy about it.
Again, I'm asking for a direct quote from the Constitution that enumerates that specific power for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don't want to keep ranting against it if the power is truly and clearly granted. If you are able to provide that I would really appreciate it.
Until someone can provide direct evidence to the contrary, this is the stance with which I agree: http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
Chuck!
Regular Member
AFAIK, the power of the Supreme Court to decide matters of constitutionality were inferred by the Court. I still don't see any direct, specific enumeration of the power of Judicial Review (deciding if law is constitutional or not) for the Supreme Court. That was one of the questions John Marshall was trying to answer in the case. Unfortunately, there appeared to be a conflict of interest since Marshall was involved in the original issue prior to it reaching the high court. Nobody yet has been able to show the direct text that empowers the Supreme Court to decide matters of constitutionality. All law school videos on the matter that I've watched teach that it was a power inferred by the Court; it gave itself the power. All scholarly-ish articles on the subject also point to the power being inferred and not specified in the Constitution.
You can read in the opinion (towards the end http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137), Marshall is saying in a alot of words, "Somebody has to do it and the Supreme Court is the logical entity." There really isn't anything specific in the Constitution that confers the power to the Supreme Court. I think it was in Federalist #78 (or 76??) where there is a little discussion that might relate a little bit but it doesn't really clarify, IMHO. It's telling to me that clear privilege for the Supreme Court to decide matters of constitutionality is missing from the Constitution. It looks to me like a usurped power by a Chief Justice that might have had a conflict of interest. If there was clear language conferring that privilege upon the Court, it would make my life a little easier because it would be one less thing to think about...
ETA: I'm really hoping that Werz or COL have an end-all-beat-all way of explaining it so I can put it to rest in my own mind. I've learned a lot from those two over the years. I also appreciate your input but just putting a quote of something we've undoubtedly read over and over wasn't what I was looking for. I'm wanting to see a specific clause... a highlighted phrase... something concrete.
Last edited:
I hope that I've kept the following quotes short enough for Fair Use (?) and not too far OT. If not, I apologize and please note that it was not intentional.
Please note that constitutionality was not even an issue in the case at hand! IMHO, this was a very sneaky usurpation of an unenumerated power. A constitutional error in 1803 is still an error and ought to be corrected through constitutional amendment or reset all questions of constitutionality. Perhaps "shall not be infringed" will mean what it says in plain language?
Please note that constitutionality was not even an issue in the case at hand! IMHO, this was a very sneaky usurpation of an unenumerated power. A constitutional error in 1803 is still an error and ought to be corrected through constitutional amendment or reset all questions of constitutionality. Perhaps "shall not be infringed" will mean what it says in plain language?
Last edited:
Werz
Regular Member
<heh> I have been waiting for someone to renew a 200-year-old complaint about Marbury v. Madison.
Consider the alternative. If there is no judicial power to invalidate a statute, of what use is the Bill of Rights? There are no self-executing penalties under the Bill of Rights, nor are any penalties prescribed. In the absence of any penalties, the rights enumerated therein become mere suggestions. Remember that, in the normal scheme of things, statutes are enacted by the majority vote of both houses of Congress, and by the signature of the President; they have a vested interest in the laws they enact. If the Supreme Court does not have the power to invalidate those statutes, then who would? Congress could pass, and the President could sign and enforce, any anti-gun legislation they desired, and the Second Amendment would be powerless to countermand it. The only other solution would be a citizen revolt to overturn a Constitutional republic, in which case, the Constitution itself, including the Bill of Rights, becomes meaningless.
It is more that just Article III, Sections 1 and 2. It is the only logical choice. But that choice will not always yield the outcomes you desire.
Consider the alternative. If there is no judicial power to invalidate a statute, of what use is the Bill of Rights? There are no self-executing penalties under the Bill of Rights, nor are any penalties prescribed. In the absence of any penalties, the rights enumerated therein become mere suggestions. Remember that, in the normal scheme of things, statutes are enacted by the majority vote of both houses of Congress, and by the signature of the President; they have a vested interest in the laws they enact. If the Supreme Court does not have the power to invalidate those statutes, then who would? Congress could pass, and the President could sign and enforce, any anti-gun legislation they desired, and the Second Amendment would be powerless to countermand it. The only other solution would be a citizen revolt to overturn a Constitutional republic, in which case, the Constitution itself, including the Bill of Rights, becomes meaningless.
It is more that just Article III, Sections 1 and 2. It is the only logical choice. But that choice will not always yield the outcomes you desire.
It can "mean" anything you want. Without the judicial power to enforce those words by invalidating legislation, and with a vested interested in the legislative and executive branches to maintain the legislation enacted, those words are nothing but lofty ideals, just like all the other heart-warming aphorisms you learned as a child. Of course, the judicial power will not always interpret those words in the same dogmatic manner that some may demand. But you can't always have your way. Didn't your mom teach you that?
Werz,
I have no "desired outcome." I simply hear and read people asserting that it is an enumerated privilege and it doesn't really seem to be. I gather that it is not a privilege explicitly granted to the Supreme Court through the Constitution. I was really hoping for a more concrete answer that would convince me that it was actually spelled out in the Constitution or something so that I could put it to rest in my own thoughts. I guess that's not happening today. It's more difficult to put any credence in a constitution when our government violated it so early and that action still affects individual rights today. Yes, it's an old argument but the effects are still being felt and will continue for as long as Judicial Review is being wielded by the Court.
Uncalled for impolite response not withstanding, thanks for the reply.
(Serious question: *Edited* Maybe it's just the way I read your posts... IDK. If you don't mean it that way then I apologize.)
I have no "desired outcome." I simply hear and read people asserting that it is an enumerated privilege and it doesn't really seem to be. I gather that it is not a privilege explicitly granted to the Supreme Court through the Constitution. I was really hoping for a more concrete answer that would convince me that it was actually spelled out in the Constitution or something so that I could put it to rest in my own thoughts. I guess that's not happening today. It's more difficult to put any credence in a constitution when our government violated it so early and that action still affects individual rights today. Yes, it's an old argument but the effects are still being felt and will continue for as long as Judicial Review is being wielded by the Court.
Uncalled for impolite response not withstanding, thanks for the reply.
(Serious question: *Edited* Maybe it's just the way I read your posts... IDK. If you don't mean it that way then I apologize.)
Last edited:
Here's another thought. Since the Court wants to claim that unenumerated privilege, why should it be able to refuse to hear a case that clearly represents a constitutional issue? Shouldn't the Court be compelled to hear the case as is its duty? By refusing to hear such a case, isn't it denying redress of a constitutional grievance? That allows activist justices to cherry pick only those cases which might further their own agenda. In the meantime, the very party that the Constitution was drafted to protect is harmed.
ETA: Is there a process to compel the Supreme Court to hear an individual case?
ETA: Is there a process to compel the Supreme Court to hear an individual case?
Last edited:
Werz
Regular Member
It has long been my experience that people see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and read what they want to read. When they are confronted with facts which conflict with their chosen ideology, it creates cognitive dissonance, causing them to seek out resources which reassure them of their preconceived reality. At that point, argument becomes fruitless.
Thus, I will simply leave you with a "plain language" commentary in a form analogous to one which is highly favored in these environs:
What don't you understand about "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"?
Have a nice day.