Bio not provided
@JohnLambert1 @onetenther @mrducksmrnot
Since the Constitution and it's several amendments are not written in complicated legalese, it should be easy enough for all citizens who can read and have reasonable reading comrehension skills to understand it. It really is up to We the People to know what laws are constitutional or not, and hold our elected officials accountable to their oaths.
But perhaps, the Constituion may need to be re-written in "cyber shorthand" for the younger generation to be able to understand it.
10 months ago on Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream
JohnLambert1, you sure are hell bent on trying to convince everyone that the Amendments to the first 10 amendments (aka "Bill of Rights") to the Constitution don't apply to the States. Why do you want to leave that door open?
I took me a spell to study on your past arguements in another thread, that followed this notion, but I think I've figured it out. You want the States to be able to trample all over the enumerated protect rights of the individuals, until at some point, enough States have done so, and have effectively "nullified" the US Constitution all together bypassing the amendment process prescribed in Article V.
The Supremacy Clause states that "This Constitution..." is the "supreme Law of the Land", and ALL amendments to teh Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) are PART OF the US Constitution
The 14th Amendment DIDN'T "incorporate" the bill of rights, to be imposed upon the States. they already had been by the Supremacy Clause within the Constitution. That clause was present in the US Constitution before the BoR were ratified, and the amendments didn't change ANYTHING in the original document.
The 14th Amendment, was ratified shortly after the "War between the States" in 1868. Section 1 of that amendment simply instated citizenship of the recently freed slaves that had been born here, and mandated that they be endowed with the same "previleges and immunities" protected by the Constitution as the rest of the citizenry.
I'm thinking you may be a usurper of the Constitution, sir. Misrepresenting the Constitution is what usurpers do, in order to get around it.
Mrducksmrnot, it use to be that those who campaigned for public office were ASKED to do so by their peers. They were ASKED because the citizens of their communities knew their charactor and beleived they would best represent them.
And yes, it was an honor to be "asked to serve" in public office. Today, people are still being asked to serve, but for the wrong reasons. Too many of the citizenry want their elected officials to "get for them" what they won't get off their butts and "get for themselves".
Secession wouldn't be necessary in the scenario you describe. If 3/4 of the States were to press the issue of returning to Constitutional governence, the remaining States would be forced to go along (albiet KICKING and SCREAMING, LOL) or THEY'd have to seccede. But of course, this is all up to the citizenry of each State.
Our Republic was designed for a "self-governing" citizenry, of moral and virtuous charactor. It will not work for no other, as we can see for ourselves, today. Having "carreer" politicians was never part of the plan. All who were elected to office, to represent their States in the Nations Capitol were businessmen and farmers. They still had to tend their business interests, while serving in government. Even the State legislators were "part timers" in government matters. As you can imagine, these legislative officials didn't spend a whole lot of time "in session".
Is it possible to get back to volunteer government work? Not totally. It would depend greatly on just how self-governing the citizenry are willing to return to. Considering that this would mean bearing far more responsibility for our own idividual sustinance and well-being, by EVERYONE, this could be a tall order. The citizenry has become very spoiled.
@mrducksmrnot Article VI, paragraph 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 Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Now, keep in mind that ALL amendments to the Constitution are PART OF said document, making them part of the "supreme Law of the Land". What Wikipedia says about federal laws being mandated to be "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution is correct. Any Law made in Congress (the SOLE lawmaking body of our government) must be within the powers delegated to the Fed government by the Constitution and must not violate any protected "Rights" of the people enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" or subsequent Amendments that have followed.
The 2nd Amendment has no qualifiers or exceptions within its text and language, as to who can or cannot "keep and bear Arms', nor as to what type "Arms" the people can or cannot "keep and bear". Also note that the 2nd does not specify what level of government it applies to, therefore, it must apply to all levels, and the courts are mandatorially bound in their rulings to favor the Constitution over Statute. Unfortunately, the courts don't always do this.
Madison and Jefferson recognized that the courts were not always going to adhere to the Constitution in their rulings. Afterall, judges are human and MOST humans have a difficult time setting their biases asside. Judges are suppose to rule without personal bias, but that doesn't always happen. Nullification was intended as a safe guard against imporper rulings by the courts. Without the power of the States, and the people (jury nullification) to nullify unconstitutional or unjust laws, the Constitution would become impitent and worthless by an "activist" majority ruling court.
Also, Wikipedia isn't always the best source of info regarding the Constitution. It is long been known as being liberally biased in it's "editing".
Let us not forget, that "WE the People" have nullification powers, as individuals, as well, in the form of "jury nullification". Any law that no one can be convicted of violating, is unenforceable, and therefore, NULLIFIED.
GrumpyOldGoat, as to the "war on drugs" we have to ask, when was the Constitution amended to initiate this operation? It took a Constitutional Amendment (18th) to start the "war on alcohol" in 1919, which started "Prohibition" during the "roaring 20's", which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment that ended Prohibition in 1933.
So.....where's that War on Drugs Amendment? That's right, it don't exist. At least not where the Federal Government is concerned.
The States made a grave mistake in ratifying the 16th Amendment. They set themselves up to be victims of extortion by the Fed.
10 months, 1 week ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law
Onetenther, it actually would take 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution.
10 months, 2 weeks ago on The Founders and the 2nd Amendment
ummm.....How have the States been "in default" of this compact, if, as you claim, the BOR are not applicable to the States? You seem to contradict yourself in your arguments, sir.
But I agree, since the States did submit the proposed Bill of Rights and did ratify them, it would seem, to the reasoanbly minded that the States intended to honor the enumerated rights of the individual people within their jurisdictions. Somewhere along the line, in many if not all States, to one degree or another, they have fallen down on this.
Who's to blame for this? I'd say it is the "PEOPLES" fault. We, in our ignorance of the Constitution (or in some cases blatant defiance), have failed to hold our elected governments feet to the fire, that is within the Constitution. In Fact, generally speeking, it has been We the People that have failed to hold ourselves to the Constitution.
11 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th
@onetenther @DwayneStovall @OnTheMark
onetenther, you have brought up a great point. Our government is NOT functioning as it was intended, in accordance with the Constitution. The judiciary wasn't given powers of "judicial review", by the Constitution, to begin with. It gave itself that power a long time ago. This might have worked out OK, "IF" the courts had based their rulings strickly in accordence with the text and language of the Constitution itself. BUT, it has NOT done that. Instead, the courts have ruled too often based on either popular opinion or the justices own biases, which often ignores the Constitution.
Plus, the courts have allowed arguments brought forth to stand, that were based on documentations outside the Constitution, mainly from the "Federalist Papers". Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the "Federalists" they guys that advocated giving the Fed Government more powers than the Constitution delegated to it? Why is it that no one wants to reffer to the "anti-Federalist Papers" that advocated LESS powers be given to the Fed Gov than was delegated to it by the Constitution? If I'm correct about the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists", then it would seem that using the "Federalists" arguments before the courts is what has gotten us into the mess we're in today. And maybe, that is why Dwayne Stovall likes to go to said arguments rather than keeping to the text and language of the Constitution itself.
Dwayne, I'll ask you. Why did a few of the States have to amend parts of their own Constitutions, to come into compliance with the US Constitution, after it and the "Bill of Rights" were ratified?
BTW, the "Bill of Rights" were among over 120 proposed amendments to the Constitution, submitted by the States, after the main body of the Constitution was ratified in 1787. Only 12 were passed by the NEW Constitutional Congress and presented to the States for ratification (10 ratified in 1791). And of the 2 that didn't make the cut in 1791, one of them was finally ratified in 1992, becoming the 27th Amendmnet.
No, I'm not a nationalist. I consider the US Constitution as a contract between the States as to what powers the Fed would have and how the new republic would function. And as a contract, I try to glean an interpretation strictly from the text and language therein.
Government DOES fear the citizenry. Why do you think the communists in our governments are trying so hard to disarm us? They KNOW what will happen to them, if they don't. It won't be pretty.
11 months ago on Let Me Say This Clearly
The Supremacy Clause does no such thing! The Supremacy Clause CLEARLY States that all laws made by the Federal Government "SHALL" (or must) be made in Pursuance" of the Constitution. Any Fed Laws that ARE NOT "in Pursuance" of the Constitution are NON-laws to begin with. The States not only have a right to nullifiy non-laws (unconstitutional laws) made by the Federal government, it is their duty to do so, as representatives of the people in their respective jurisdiction.
The supremacy Clause also CLEARLY STATES that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. And since the 2nd Amendment IS PART OF the Constitution, it IS the supreme Law of the Land, too.
We the People also have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws, by refusing to indict or convict anyone charged with violating such laws, as jurors.
Dwayne, it appears that your interpretation would restrain only the Federal government from, say, infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but not the States themselves. Is that what you are saying?
If so, what if ALL the States decided to dissarm the citizens of thier respective jurisdictions? Wouldn't that make the 2nd Amendment a totally imputant protection of an unalienable right of the people?
I think you put too much imphases on the Preamble of the US Constitution and the introductary notice to the States which was sent with the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution for ratification.
The US Constitution, Article I through Article VII, and ALL Amendments that have been ratified since, is the legally binding part of said document. The Preamble is merely a brief description of the document.
Not necessarily. Most of the "Bill of Rights" are not specific, in their wording, as to what level of government they apply to.
The 1st Amendment starts off with "Congress shall make no law...", specifically aimes at the Federal legislative body. However, we may find that the States have also limited themselves, via their respective State Constitutions, concerning the issues contained in the !st Amendment of the US Constitution.
The rest of the 1st 10 Amendments (AKA Bill of Rights) are NOT specific, in what level of government they apply to. So, we should assume that these limitations were intended to apply to ALL levels of governence AND to the people as well, in particular the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
And as a reminder, All amendments that have been made to the US Constitution are PART OF the Constitution, and in so being, are the "supreme Law of the Land", in accordance to Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution (the "Supremacy Clause").
No, I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the heads up.
@KathyWashburn @Michael Boldin @LLKayaker
Ya know Kathy, back when I was still in HS after a couple of months of American History ('69/70), the consensus in my Jr year was that Government was nothing more than legalized organized crime. I don't think much has changed, since then. Probably gotten much worse.
I think we need to focus on educating our neighbors and others about the Constitution. Tell the cold facts about the document and that it is "the supreme Law of the Land". I've been purchasing Pocket Constitutions by bulk and handing them out to people to study. Next week I'm going to be distributing the booklets to the local Boy Scout and Cub Scout groups in my county.
The more people we can get educated about the US Constitution, the quicker we'll get this monster back in its cage.
@Michael Boldin @LLKayaker @KathyWashburn
Mickael, the biggest problem is convicing others what laws are unconstitutional. How many times have you argued with someone over the prohibition of certain persons from "keeping and bearing arms" being unconstitutional?
With most people, they beleive that if "THEY" agree with a law, it just HAS TO BE Constitutional (whether it is or not doesn't matter).
Yeah....that'll work too. I've already emailed Senators Corker and Alexander and let them know what lowdown traitors they were.
BTW, don't trust the NRA too much either. Here in TN we had 2 nullification bills (SB250 and SB100) get hung up in committee, both had teeth to them with criminal charges attached. NRA was silent on those, but have just jumped up and called for support of another "so-called" nullification bill that has no teeth at all.