My Article on The McDonald Ruling

since9 · Feb 28, 2011

irfner said:
Each time the constitution refers to 'the people' it is referring to individuals.[

Please capitalize that. It's The People. Thanks.

Sorry to say but there are limits on states rights.

Sorry to say, but you are totally not understanding the fundamental nature of our United States. Each of our states retain their sovereign authority. They "united" a few years ago because at the time, it was in their best interest to do so, but did so as little more that a loose conglomeration.

Our Fed forgets that. Often.

...cannot make laws taking away rights or freedoms which are recognized as guaranteed to the people (read that individual citizens) by the US Constitution. Or certain other laws that have been reserved for the Federal Government, like printing money. Indeed states should make laws which further protect our individual rights and freedom.

No kidding. Can't make laws which violate our Constitution, either, yet there are several on the books as we speak.

Boehner knows that. He just wants his colleagues to know it, too.

1245A Defender · Apr 26, 2011

well,,,

please delete your address,
and dont use your full name, its easy to change your screen name, do it!

stuckinchico · Apr 26, 2011

wethepeople said:
She is not anti-gun. She is anti freedom or anti-American. If you are against the constitution as it is written then you are anti-american. Period. I love the way the liberals want to pick and choose what part of the constitution they stand for. BS!

But shes a wise latina didnt you hear her say that?? LMFao joke!

Btw if you get the chance to take constitutional law class it is so much fun , yet it make you look at this once great country and makes your blood boil over

stuckinchico · Apr 26, 2011

Statesman Sentinel said:
I know many gun rights activists are cheering this decision as a victory but this is really a serious defeat for state sovereignty. The 14th Amendment's original intent was to protect the basic rights of slaves after the War Between the States. The "Incorporation Doctrine" that the Court has invented out of thin air has no basis in that intent and has only served to further empower the Federal government in matters relegated to the States.

The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the Federal government from doing things to the States, and is not a list of individual rights. Is the Chicago ban bad policy, ridiculous, and tyrannical? Yes, but it would be judged to be constitutional by the founders, albeit stupid.

We should not rely on the dictates of federal power to secure our natural rights. We have almost no influence over the Feds. People need to get control of their local governments, where they have at least some chance of influence.

Actually no the court merely states that the States must no infringe on any of the Bill of Rights. If you look at the federalist papers the context does not seem to suggest that it was merely to keep the FEDs from bending the states over, it appeared to have applied to the people too

My Article on The McDonald Ruling

since9

Campaign Veteran

1245A Defender

Regular Member

stuckinchico

Regular Member

stuckinchico

Regular Member