In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by truthful
Just get together with all the media and washington insiders and knock Trump out of it. Then we can all look forward to 8 more years of Clintons in the White House along with all their crimes, scandals, and corruption.
Since there are still other candidates in the running who stand an even better chance at beating Hillary than Trump does, well frankly, your post makes no sense whatsoever.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
You are correct.
We should vote for Hillary because we know where she stands and can count on her.
Or, one could back Cruz whose history demonstrates a consistent support of the Constitution. Your choice.
problem with cruz is he plans on taxing employers more then they are already paying which causes them to cut or not fill jobs along with moving to a friendlier country so I don't recommend voting for him unless you are one of those people that don't need to work.
quote:Originally posted by pip5255
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
You are correct.
We should vote for Hillary because we know where she stands and can count on her.
Or, one could back Cruz whose history demonstrates a consistent support of the Constitution. Your choice.
problem with cruz is he plans on taxing employers more then they are already paying which causes them to cut or not fill jobs along with moving to a friendlier country so I don't recommend voting for him unless you are one of those people that don't need to work.
Interesting, your argument is the exact opposite of the one proffered by the other here who boisterously opposes Cruz's BTT.
And it turns out neither of you are correct, but for different reasons. The BTT Cruz proposes levies a tax on business that is, in effect, the same rate as they presently pay. However it is calculated in a far less complicated way. Ultimately, that results in a net savings by any accounting. In the off chance you care to investigate further: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by wpage
Trump is the only one not owned by special interests...
That is why the establishment is now coming out so hard against him.[8]
The tinfoil hatters seem to be gaining members by the day. First, to suggest that Trump is immune to special interest is naive at best. Second, Occam's razor suggests the main reason the establishment republicans don't like Trump is simply that his record on policies is counter to those maintained by the bulk of the party (i.e. he's been a lifelong Democrat). Couple that with his cavalier attitude regarding his use of words and promised use of the bully pulpit, it's clear that they simply see him as a dangerous demagogue.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
On the 15th I will vote for Cruze. I hope he is the candidate,
but if he is not, I will vote for anyone running against Clinton.
It seems there are those here who have no confidence in what
Trump says. I do however have total confidence in what Clinton says,
and truly hope she never gets the opportunity to keep her word.
She may be a liar about much, but it's what she's not lying about
that scares the hell out of me.
Hear is the problem that I hear from everyone. People are just tired of career politicians, that vote with other peoples wallets in mind. Yes, we all hate Trump and Hillary and want Cruz to win, but it is not going to happen. Either one of these two jerks will win and were screwed either way. Do you really trust any of the candidates??????Not me, but I will not vote for Hillary.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Trump = pi? That's circular logic if I ever saw any.
That was meant to represent the circle jerk that Trump supporters engage in.
[;)][:D]
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
Take away Cruz's 99 Delegates he got in Texas and he is not even in the race. What is going to happen when he hits the northern states. I don't know what kind of President Trump will make, but I believe it is going to happen. Iw ill vote for him over Hillary.
quote:Originally posted by jltrent
Take away Cruz's 99 Delegates he got in Texas and he is not even in the race. What is going to happen when he hits the northern states. I don't know what kind of President Trump will make, but I believe it is going to happen. Iw ill vote for him over Hillary.
I'm sure certain Texans will be happy to hear of your support for their secession movement.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
With due respect, Dan, perhaps it is you that should wake up and investigate Trump's past.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Yes, it would. First of all, there is no constitutional right that guarantees no infringement by the government to driving a car on public roadways or otherwise. So just stop with the sophistry.
Second of all, as I have pointed out numerous times before, the "I get to carry a gun" permission slip that requires folks to beg and plead for the right to be armed is unconstitutional at the state level. Please explain for me how creating a FEDERAL carry permit is any less unconstitutional?
To the thinking mind it's even worse.
Consider this: in at least two states NO beg and plead permission slip is necessary. Will the FEDERAL system simply adopt that nationwide? If you believe so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is where the problem arises, Joe.
It is not necessarily a Constitutional problem if the Federal Government simply forces states to accept the permits of the other states. The problem will be that states with restrictive permitting processes will object to having to let citizens of Vermont walk their streets without a permit. Or, do we now force citizens of Vermont to go through a permitting process?
We know the answer to this, and it will be (just like driver's licenses) that the Federal Government will establish minimum standards for the issuance of a permit by the states. At that point, we do have a Constitutional issue in that it will be the Federal Government creating a power for itself not delegated by the Constitution. Then, the only Constitutional action possible by the Federal Government would be to impose the acceptance of true (permit-less) Constitutional Carry upon all of the States.
So, while superficially this Universal Carry Permit Statue does not seem to have Constitutional issues, the application of such a law has about a 99.9% chance of creating one.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
Your post leaves me wondering: are you even remotely aware that each state has its own constitution? Even remotely aware?
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
Don, that is an excellent point. The BOR was intended to apply to the states, but as history bears out, it has not fully been so for various reasons. Regardless, each and every state constitution includes all of the enumerated rights codified in the US Constitution and in some cases the states are even more explicit in how they are codified and more strict in how the state is to govern their citizens. To be ignorant of that fact as tallcharlie seems to be is mystifying to me, but ultimately it's unsurprising.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
You are wrong. The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Did not and were intended to are two very different things, Joe, and I see no way around the fact that we had both.
Yes, they are different. I did not use them synonymously.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
So Jefferson was wrong ?
When he fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings? Yes, that was wrong. Do you have any other stupid questions?
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
It is obvious that Madison presented the Bill of Rights as individual rights of the people that were enforceable upon the States. It is also instructive that the First Amendment, which was the 3rd Article at the time, was re-written to specifically mention Congress, as it originally specifically addressed the states.
It is also important to note that it was only in 1833 that the Supreme Court rendered the first decision that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the States.
There is no question as to how the Bill of Rights was applied or rather not applied to the states over time. As Madison noted, most of these rights were already protected by the Constitutions of the individual States, but it is also obvious that Madison's goal was to also restrict the powers of the individual states over the individual rights of their citizens. In Barron v. Baltimore is was ruled that the omission of a specific reference to the states confirms that the Bill of Rights did not apply to those States, even though, at the time, most of the States were operating under the assumption that they did.
This court decision, IMO, ignores the specific reference to the rights of 'the people' and 'persons' as the individual rights intended by Madison and others during the writing and submittal of the Bill of Rights.
History tells us that from 1791 through 1833 the majority of the States operated under the assumption that the Bill of Rights was applied to them. An incorrect SCOTUS decision, Barron v Baltimore formally changed this. An error that was corrected by the application of a phrase in the 14th Amendment that reiterates Article 4, Section 2, and the a provision in the 5th Amendment itself.
It is, therefore, my assertion, that Barron v Baltimore was a flawed decision that changed the original intent of the Bill of Rights and changed how the individual State Legislatures believed that Bill of Rights applied to them.
You are correct that in our History, from 1833 to the beginnings of 14th Amendment incorporation, the Bill of Rights did not apply to State and local legislatures and judiciaries. This does not, IMO, change the fact that prior to 1833 it was generally assumed they did.
History is not as clean as we are led to believe.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Neither oversight nor sloppy anything.
Do not try to limit the possible answer to your question a priori as others so often do.
I started prior to that with Madison's presentation to the House of Representatives. I see nothing new in what you have linked. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your point.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
Oh, horse manure! Who ties your shoes for you?
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
Oh, horse manure! Who ties your shoes for you?
I was right, you have no idea State Constitutions exist.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Neither oversight nor sloppy anything.
Do not try to limit the possible answer to your question a priori as others so often do.
I started prior to that with Madison's presentation to the House of Representatives. I see nothing new in what you have linked. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your point.
It appears as though you are conflating what was presented to the states for ratification with some idea that they were presented to the states for their individual adoption.
Which is why I pointed out what became the first amendment as a clear example that was an incorrect assumption.
If you have a clear an uncontrovertable (as much as that is possible) reference by Madison that what you are suggesting is the case, feel free to post it.
Not by interpreted general reference, please.
I posted a link to Madison's presentation to the House and copied a section of the transcript earlier. About the ninth post on this page. It reflects the reference to the States in what became the First Amendment that was changed and previously discussed. While presented as a group, I believe it to be an significant assumption that the wording regarding the specific restriction on Congress noted in the first to be operative on the remainder. For this to be the case, such a statement should be in the preamble, which it is not.
I simply cannot believe that, while singling out Congress for limitation in the first Amendment, the remainder that specifically mention protections of 'the people' and of 'persons' are not universal in nature and intent.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Hellory will win, why, because Republicans are to childish to get together and stand behind one person. No candidate is perfect. If one would look in all of their past you will find something wrong with all of them.
A vote for anyone but the candidate that runs under the Republican name is a vote for Hellory. Anyone who votes for her is saying they don't give a damn about this once great nation. You think Obama screwed us wait till she gets in office. We will be doomed.
Getting back to the OP, I have read so much BS from the media about Trump but have found little proof he said this or that. Anyone can say anything about anyone. Does not actually make it true. Kinda like the fools that claim the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery. Try going to DC sometime and read Lincoln's papers. He didn't give a damn about slaves. Politics was the same back then as it is now. All about power and money.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
If you would look at how much the US government owes and to who, and look at how and why all of the industry that made us a power house in WWII has packed up and set up over seas. You might be able to make a better contribution to the conversation.
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
If you would look at how much the US government owes and to who, and look at how and why all of the industry that made us a power house in WWII has packed up and set up over seas. You might be able to make a better contribution to the conversation.
Mr. Perfect never allows facts or logic to stand in his way too a stupid conclusion.
It's not unconstitutional to sue the newspapers. It will just be thrown out of court. You can sue a telephone pole if you want to.You just can't win.
No state can pass a law preventing you from keeping and bearing arms' Ask Chicago or Illinois. The supreme court ruled against them, Did they not? The bill of rights applies to the states as well as the Fed.
Any state can pass a unconstitutional law and it stands until it is over ruled by the courts. Any state or person who contests it must be able to show that it has cause him harm or loss. Not anybody can contest it. It may stand for many years even though it is unconstitutional. There are cases where the safety of the public over rules the constitution,
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
It's not unconstitutional to sue the newspapers. It will just be thrown out of court. You can sue a telephone pole if you want to.You just can't win.
No state can pass a law preventing you from keeping and bearing arms' Ask Chicago or Illinois. The supreme court ruled against them, Did they not? The bill of rights applies to the states as well as the Fed.
Any state can pass a unconstitutional law and it stands until it is over ruled by the courts. Any state or person who contests it must be able to show that it has cause him harm or loss. Not anybody can contest it. It may stand for many years even though it is unconstitutional. There are cases where the safety of the public over rules the constitution,
So, you want a president that will file frivolous lawsuits that bully newspapers? Odd.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Mr. Perfect4
So you want the same old corrupt system we have now HUH? I never said what I wanted and you don't know. What do you think of the national inquirer's story about Cruz's so called affairs. No constitutional right is without limits. What I want above all else is the truth and we haven't been getting much of that.
Comments
Just get together with all the media and washington insiders and knock Trump out of it. Then we can all look forward to 8 more years of Clintons in the White House along with all their crimes, scandals, and corruption.
Since there are still other candidates in the running who stand an even better chance at beating Hillary than Trump does, well frankly, your post makes no sense whatsoever.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
You are correct.
We should vote for Hillary because we know where she stands and can count on her.
Or, one could back Cruz whose history demonstrates a consistent support of the Constitution. Your choice.
problem with cruz is he plans on taxing employers more then they are already paying which causes them to cut or not fill jobs along with moving to a friendlier country so I don't recommend voting for him unless you are one of those people that don't need to work.
That is why the establishment is now coming out so hard against him.[8]
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
You are correct.
We should vote for Hillary because we know where she stands and can count on her.
Or, one could back Cruz whose history demonstrates a consistent support of the Constitution. Your choice.
problem with cruz is he plans on taxing employers more then they are already paying which causes them to cut or not fill jobs along with moving to a friendlier country so I don't recommend voting for him unless you are one of those people that don't need to work.
Interesting, your argument is the exact opposite of the one proffered by the other here who boisterously opposes Cruz's BTT.
And it turns out neither of you are correct, but for different reasons. The BTT Cruz proposes levies a tax on business that is, in effect, the same rate as they presently pay. However it is calculated in a far less complicated way. Ultimately, that results in a net savings by any accounting. In the off chance you care to investigate further: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Trump is the only one not owned by special interests...
That is why the establishment is now coming out so hard against him.[8]
The tinfoil hatters seem to be gaining members by the day. First, to suggest that Trump is immune to special interest is naive at best. Second, Occam's razor suggests the main reason the establishment republicans don't like Trump is simply that his record on policies is counter to those maintained by the bulk of the party (i.e. he's been a lifelong Democrat). Couple that with his cavalier attitude regarding his use of words and promised use of the bully pulpit, it's clear that they simply see him as a dangerous demagogue.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
but if he is not, I will vote for anyone running against Clinton.
It seems there are those here who have no confidence in what
Trump says. I do however have total confidence in what Clinton says,
and truly hope she never gets the opportunity to keep her word.
She may be a liar about much, but it's what she's not lying about
that scares the hell out of me.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Trump = pi? That's circular logic if I ever saw any.
That was meant to represent the circle jerk that Trump supporters engage in.
[;)][:D]
Trump has said that as president he would sue Newspapers that write negatively about him... 1st amendment be damned.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
Take away Cruz's 99 Delegates he got in Texas and he is not even in the race. What is going to happen when he hits the northern states. I don't know what kind of President Trump will make, but I believe it is going to happen. Iw ill vote for him over Hillary.
I'm sure certain Texans will be happy to hear of your support for their secession movement.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Trump has said that as president he would sue Newspapers that write negatively about him... 1st amendment be damned.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
With due respect, Dan, perhaps it is you that should wake up and investigate Trump's past.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Yes, it would. First of all, there is no constitutional right that guarantees no infringement by the government to driving a car on public roadways or otherwise. So just stop with the sophistry.
Second of all, as I have pointed out numerous times before, the "I get to carry a gun" permission slip that requires folks to beg and plead for the right to be armed is unconstitutional at the state level. Please explain for me how creating a FEDERAL carry permit is any less unconstitutional?
To the thinking mind it's even worse.
Consider this: in at least two states NO beg and plead permission slip is necessary. Will the FEDERAL system simply adopt that nationwide? If you believe so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Funny how some of you all suddenly become Constitutional experts when it's time to criticize Trump.
So you think a nationwide concealed carry permit would be unconstitutional?
I guess then that nationwide driver's licenses are unconstitutional. So your redneck license from Alabama or Louisiana is no good in uptown New York City or downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you think?
Ever read the Constitution? In particular Article IV?quote:Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is where the problem arises, Joe.
It is not necessarily a Constitutional problem if the Federal Government simply forces states to accept the permits of the other states. The problem will be that states with restrictive permitting processes will object to having to let citizens of Vermont walk their streets without a permit. Or, do we now force citizens of Vermont to go through a permitting process?
We know the answer to this, and it will be (just like driver's licenses) that the Federal Government will establish minimum standards for the issuance of a permit by the states. At that point, we do have a Constitutional issue in that it will be the Federal Government creating a power for itself not delegated by the Constitution. Then, the only Constitutional action possible by the Federal Government would be to impose the acceptance of true (permit-less) Constitutional Carry upon all of the States.
So, while superficially this Universal Carry Permit Statue does not seem to have Constitutional issues, the application of such a law has about a 99.9% chance of creating one.
Brad Steele
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
Your post leaves me wondering: are you even remotely aware that each state has its own constitution? Even remotely aware?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
Don, that is an excellent point. The BOR was intended to apply to the states, but as history bears out, it has not fully been so for various reasons. Regardless, each and every state constitution includes all of the enumerated rights codified in the US Constitution and in some cases the states are even more explicit in how they are codified and more strict in how the state is to govern their citizens. To be ignorant of that fact as tallcharlie seems to be is mystifying to me, but ultimately it's unsurprising.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States, only the federal government. However, a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the selective application of the BoR to the States; this is called incorporation.
IIRC, it takes a Supreme Court decision to incorporate any of the Amendments on the States.
Now back to the question of a nation-wide CCW permit. State driver's licenses are controlled by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The 1968 GCA is justified with the same clause, even for purely intrastate transactions. That's just for your general information.
But the fed could decree that States which did not accept CCW permits from other states are in violation of the Constitution (as quoted above), and then the Justice Department would/could step in. It's all hypothetical at this point, but given the actions of the federal government in the past, I believe they could do it with impunity and this is the way they would go about it.
The Bill of Rights as presented by Madison most certainly were intended to apply to the states. The fact that they were not officially incorporated at the time is an accident of history that reflects the weakness of the Federal Government at the time and not the intended application. A simple reading of Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 make it obvious that they apply to the States and the legislative and judiciaries in the states. Likewise, in Madison's presentation to the House of the Bill of Rights, it is again obvious that the intent was to have them incorporated upon the States upon their ratification:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html
That myth dispelled, (or at least placed into legitimate doubt) and back to the OP, I cannot imagine the current Federal Government, with the mix of anti-liberty Democrats and Republicans in Congress, simply passing a law that allows the states to set their own standards for system over which that Federal Government is assuming control.
Powerful Senators on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated through both statements and actions their lack of respect for the retained powers of the States and the individual liberties of the Citizen. In this environment, one cannot reasonably imagine that Congress will pass a clean law that forces all states to accept the CCW permit of every other state.
There will be, absent a clean Constitutional Carry (permit-less) law a legitimate 9th and 10th Amendment challenge based upon retained rights of the individual. We know such a law would never be accepted. This leaves the only logical option of a law passed with a compromised list of minimum standards which could include training requirements, and most dangerously issuance based upon demonstrated need or cause as is practiced in a number of states.
One can be optimistic through a studied approach as Joe has done, or one can accept a simplistic talking point as Trump has done. One must also aware of the fact that such a feel-good law not only further inserts the Federal Government into the layers of legislation surround our right to keep and bear arms, but also must be very conscious of history and how our Federal Government has approached this expansion of power virtually every time it has done it.
You are wrong. The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States.
Brad Steele
Did not and were intended to are two very different things, Joe, and I see no way around the fact that we had both.
Yes, they are different. I did not use them synonymously.
So Jefferson was wrong ?
When he fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings? Yes, that was wrong. Do you have any other stupid questions?
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Brad Steele
It is also important to note that it was only in 1833 that the Supreme Court rendered the first decision that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the States.
There is no question as to how the Bill of Rights was applied or rather not applied to the states over time. As Madison noted, most of these rights were already protected by the Constitutions of the individual States, but it is also obvious that Madison's goal was to also restrict the powers of the individual states over the individual rights of their citizens. In Barron v. Baltimore is was ruled that the omission of a specific reference to the states confirms that the Bill of Rights did not apply to those States, even though, at the time, most of the States were operating under the assumption that they did.
This court decision, IMO, ignores the specific reference to the rights of 'the people' and 'persons' as the individual rights intended by Madison and others during the writing and submittal of the Bill of Rights.
History tells us that from 1791 through 1833 the majority of the States operated under the assumption that the Bill of Rights was applied to them. An incorrect SCOTUS decision, Barron v Baltimore formally changed this. An error that was corrected by the application of a phrase in the 14th Amendment that reiterates Article 4, Section 2, and the a provision in the 5th Amendment itself.
It is, therefore, my assertion, that Barron v Baltimore was a flawed decision that changed the original intent of the Bill of Rights and changed how the individual State Legislatures believed that Bill of Rights applied to them.
You are correct that in our History, from 1833 to the beginnings of 14th Amendment incorporation, the Bill of Rights did not apply to State and local legislatures and judiciaries. This does not, IMO, change the fact that prior to 1833 it was generally assumed they did.
History is not as clean as we are led to believe.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Neither oversight nor sloppy anything.
Do not try to limit the possible answer to your question a priori as others so often do.
Start with the history of the matter:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I started prior to that with Madison's presentation to the House of Representatives. I see nothing new in what you have linked. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your point.
Brad Steele
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
Oh, horse manure! Who ties your shoes for you?
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
Oh, horse manure! Who ties your shoes for you?
I was right, you have no idea State Constitutions exist.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Neither oversight nor sloppy anything.
Do not try to limit the possible answer to your question a priori as others so often do.
Start with the history of the matter:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I started prior to that with Madison's presentation to the House of Representatives. I see nothing new in what you have linked. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your point.
It appears as though you are conflating what was presented to the states for ratification with some idea that they were presented to the states for their individual adoption.
Which is why I pointed out what became the first amendment as a clear example that was an incorrect assumption.
If you have a clear an uncontrovertable (as much as that is possible) reference by Madison that what you are suggesting is the case, feel free to post it.
Not by interpreted general reference, please.
I posted a link to Madison's presentation to the House and copied a section of the transcript earlier. About the ninth post on this page. It reflects the reference to the States in what became the First Amendment that was changed and previously discussed. While presented as a group, I believe it to be an significant assumption that the wording regarding the specific restriction on Congress noted in the first to be operative on the remainder. For this to be the case, such a statement should be in the preamble, which it is not.
I simply cannot believe that, while singling out Congress for limitation in the first Amendment, the remainder that specifically mention protections of 'the people' and of 'persons' are not universal in nature and intent.
Brad Steele
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
A vote for anyone but the candidate that runs under the Republican name is a vote for Hellory. Anyone who votes for her is saying they don't give a damn about this once great nation. You think Obama screwed us wait till she gets in office. We will be doomed.
Getting back to the OP, I have read so much BS from the media about Trump but have found little proof he said this or that. Anyone can say anything about anyone. Does not actually make it true. Kinda like the fools that claim the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery. Try going to DC sometime and read Lincoln's papers. He didn't give a damn about slaves. Politics was the same back then as it is now. All about power and money.
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
If you would look at how much the US government owes and to who, and look at how and why all of the industry that made us a power house in WWII has packed up and set up over seas. You might be able to make a better contribution to the conversation.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
If you would look at how much the US government owes and to who, and look at how and why all of the industry that made us a power house in WWII has packed up and set up over seas. You might be able to make a better contribution to the conversation.
Mr. Perfect never allows facts or logic to stand in his way too a stupid conclusion.
No state can pass a law preventing you from keeping and bearing arms' Ask Chicago or Illinois. The supreme court ruled against them, Did they not? The bill of rights applies to the states as well as the Fed.
Any state can pass a unconstitutional law and it stands until it is over ruled by the courts. Any state or person who contests it must be able to show that it has cause him harm or loss. Not anybody can contest it. It may stand for many years even though it is unconstitutional. There are cases where the safety of the public over rules the constitution,
It's not unconstitutional to sue the newspapers. It will just be thrown out of court. You can sue a telephone pole if you want to.You just can't win.
No state can pass a law preventing you from keeping and bearing arms' Ask Chicago or Illinois. The supreme court ruled against them, Did they not? The bill of rights applies to the states as well as the Fed.
Any state can pass a unconstitutional law and it stands until it is over ruled by the courts. Any state or person who contests it must be able to show that it has cause him harm or loss. Not anybody can contest it. It may stand for many years even though it is unconstitutional. There are cases where the safety of the public over rules the constitution,
So, you want a president that will file frivolous lawsuits that bully newspapers? Odd.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
So you want the same old corrupt system we have now HUH? I never said what I wanted and you don't know. What do you think of the national inquirer's story about Cruz's so called affairs. No constitutional right is without limits. What I want above all else is the truth and we haven't been getting much of that.