Under the rule of law and the federalism inherent in the federal constitution that statement is incorrect. However, we must remember that when a state, or local government for that matter, passes a law that infringes on a right or power enumerated in the federal constitution, it is law until stayed or struck down by the courts.

Most of us seem to be fixated on the federal government, me included; but we are most vulnerable in our everyday lives to the whims of local government as in the gun laws enacted in D.C. and such seemly mundane powers as zoning and permits. We saw that with eminent domain in Connecticut. The Supreme Court settled it; wrongly in my opinion. Also those who run for local office set the tone for future transgressions at the state level as they advance through the system and become more powerful. So be careful who you support and elect to the city council or country commission.

this is the most fucking retarded thing I have read today.

You noticed that, too? I was hoping someone would.

Did you read the discussion starting here:

jaime on March 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM ?

The Bill of rights applies to the Federal Government but not the States.

I apologise in advance for sounding harsh – but this is the most fucking retarded thing I have read today. No doubt you’ll be topped tomorrow, but for now, you’re the champ.

If what you say is true, then there is nothing to stop any state from enacting law that suppresses free speech.

If that is true – then what possible value is there in the constitution at all?

The fedgov can’t restrict my freedom of speech, but the state gov can? – so, how, exactly, do you brainiacs believe that there is any protection at all for freedom of speech?

I’ll clue you in – quite apart from the principle of ‘incorporation’ derived from the 14th amendment, there is also the “Privileges and Immunities” clause.

The several states are bound by the constitution to the same extent as the fedgov. What the fedgov may not do, the states gov may not do. What the fedgov may do takes precedence over the states gov. Anything else falls to the states to decide for themselves.

The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.

Hearing the most important gun rights case in nearly 70 years, the justices on Tuesday spent 98 minutes engrossed in a lively debate about British and American legal traditions relating to the right to bear arms, especially in self-defence.

By the end of Tuesday’s session, it appeared clear that a majority of the court would rule that the US constitution protects the right of individual Americans to “keep and bear arms” – but that federal, state and local governments will retain some powers to regulate firearms…

shuzilla on March 18, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Nicely said, shuzilla. The Bill of rights applies to the Federal Government but not the States.

I can assume that applies not only to the Bill of Rights, but also the other amendments. Like the 14th.

On the subject of why the Second Amendment was passed and how it relates to Article 1, Section 8, some history is required.

Long citation follows:

“If the first line of defense against a standing army was to intrust its existence to the representative of the people, the second was that central check that permeated the entire constitution: division of Powers . . . . Under the constitutional structure, no army could seize power or become the tool for a coup without shattering the constitution and with it, legitimate government altogether. [113]”

“Should such an event occur, the framers believed in one final safeguard: the people in the form of the militia. . . .”

“. . . Precisely because he so feared armies, George Mason pressed the convention for national authority over the militia to effect its reform. And precisely because the militia served as a powerful check against an arbitrary
and tyrannical national government, opponents of the Constitution worried that the new government’s influence over the state forces would lead to their neglect, or worse yet, a concerted effort to enfeeble them in order to render
the states impotent. That is the primary reason why opponents of the Constitution insisted, in ratifying conventions and afterwards, on amendments to guarantee the right of citizens to bear arms. The final check on standing
armies, in the minds of both the framers of the Constitution and opponents of the new system, was civil war. [116]”

[from "The Constitution and National Security," by Richard H. Kohn, pp 61-94, in "The United States Military under the Constitution of the United States, 1789-1989," also edited by Richard H. Kohn, New York University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8147-4615-2.]

Another supporting view:

“The militia clauses had a Cromwellian odor about them, so the Antifederalists argued. The Constitution already implied that Congress had the lead in determining basic military policy. Now the Antifederalists wanted to secure the rights of the states to maintain military forces, even
though the Constitution prohibited them from having standing armies and navies. As finally drafted and adopted, the Second Amendment to the Constitution reflected the values of civilian control, and decentralized power….”

["The Constitution and the Citizen-Soldier", by Allan R. Millett, pp 97 - 119, in "The United States Military under the Constitution of the United States, 1789-1989," also edited by Richard H. Kohn, New York University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8147-4615-2]

Here is what this means: In order to prevent Congress from disarming the Militia at some future time, the anti-Federalists insisted upon Amending the Constitution to prevent it by recognizing that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that Congress cannot infringe upon it. This guarantees that the Militia will always be armed.

BTW, today’s SC oral argument indicates that the individual right to keep and bear arms will be affirmed either 5-4 or maybe even 6-3. The second part of the issue, overturning DC’s handgun ban law and requiring long guns to be dissembled (the “lock up your safety” requirement) seems to be going our way as well. I guess that there is a 60% chance DC’s law as written will go down.

jaime on March 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

I think upinak isn’t understanding upinak’s argument – and proves it by declaring victory and running away… I seem to have mentioned that tactic upthread, ironically.

Sad.

Slublog on March 18, 2008 at 2:14 PM

I have to agree with you prediction on the ruling by SCOTUS. It would be a partial victory at least I suppose, but anyone trying to take guns away from American citizens would not like the reaction.

A quick collage of DC Gun ban stuff:
McCain’s Statement:
“Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an ind…

So a State could amend its constitution to forbid all but the Christian religion and the Federal Government would have nothing to say about it? OK. And the State could mandate just one denomination, say Anglican. OK. Also, a State could control that religion by appointing its leaders through a State constitutional amendment.
jaime on March 18, 2008 at 3:28 PM

I think so. The Bill of Rights addresses power that the Constitution delegates to the Federal government by attempting to limit it to the satisfaction of the states who would later ratify it. If you accept that limits to federal power trump state and local power, you must first accept that the applicable federal power also trumps state and local powers. But if you fear what people will let their state legislatures do, should you not also fear what people will let Washington do even more?

Anyway, I don’t think one could argue that the states, upon limiting the federal government through the Bill of Rights, were in any way limiting their own power in the process. In fact, they were intent on preserving that power in the face of an experemental federal government. That’s why I interpret the statement that rights are “reserved to the states and to the people” to mean that federal will is bent to the states’ legislature unless and until the state deferrs power to the individual through its own constitution. Many a delegate left the convention in 1787 to go home to states that allowed for things that were prohibited by the Bill of Rights, like official religions.

Put this link in your browser: “http://www.qubetv.tv/videos/detail/518″

I think we may be dealing with a lost cause here. (shakes head)

Merovign on March 18, 2008 at 4:10 PM

I don’t know. Maybe I’m misunderstanding upinak’s argument.

upinak on March 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM

No, I’m not arguing anything. I asked a question about a State’s ability to limit and restrict the U.S. Bill of Rights. You, as far as I can tell, say that the States have that power and only need a majority of their voters to accomplish it. I used religion as an example.

jaime on March 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM

I think we may be dealing with a lost cause here. (shakes head)

upinak on March 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM

I’m not the one with issues, and I’m not the only one you’re attacking because you can’t express yourself clearly.

Obviously, you need to learn to match up what you say to what you intend to say, because what you said at 2:29 doesn’t match what you’ve said since.

Proofread your posts for clarity, and you’ll be misunderstood much less. Clarify what you said when you’re questioned instead of insulting people, and you’ll get in less fights.

It’s just advice, take it or leave it.

Good LORD! We are talking Guns not Religon. Ugh… yeah you are mixed up.

I said the States adopted the Federal Bill of Rights when they became a State, yet you are argueing Religon compared to gun… NOT THE SAME! I don’t worship my Weapon… thanks.

LimeyGeek on March 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Thanks. That looks interesting. I’ll have to bookmark it for perusing this evening.

The constitutions pretty clear that the well regulated militia is the reason for individual gun ownership

Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to call forth, organize, train, arm and equip a militia — so if the 2nd Amendment is just about militias why is it even necessary? And what on earth is it doing amongst all those other Amendments clearly representing individual rights?

Columbine didn’t happen because of gun laws.

Besides, didnt’ those kids violate laws anyway, to get the guns they used?