Bill of Rights as it applies to the States

NOTPARS · January 2002

I am between a rock and a hard place. I logged on to the NewsMax Forum, thinking it was a place for some conservatives to hang out, and to my surprise, discovered I was wrong, way wrong. Anyway, long story short...I have been arguing that the current interpretation of "separation of church and state" is wrong. What does that have to do with Second Amendment issues? Here it is. I argue that the First Amendment was written to protect the practice of religion from government. The moderator, a liberal anti-Christian, argues that the 14th Amendment gives the national government the authority to intervene in state affairs with respect to religious practices. I argue this is a misapplication of the 14th Amendment and that the national government has no authority in the states whatsoever in this area. She asked:Is the Second Amendment only a federal guarantee or does it apply to the states?If I say federal, she will say then states have the right to restrict our right to keep and bear arms.If I say this right also applies to the states, then she will argue the national government has a right ALSO to intervene at the state level concerning the religious issue.I am missing something here. I believe the Bill of Rights applies to all people including at the state level, but the First Amendment forbids the national government from getting involved in religious matters because that is a state issue.Can anyone help with the above questions posed by the moderator?For anyone interested, I started this thread at www.newsmax.com and then go to Forum, and then click on Culture/Society and then go to "Take That ACLU Part 3" There is a part 1 and 2 in archives. Parts 4 and 5 were closed (after the moderator and many leftists got in some really slanderous attacks on me) and I was censored as well.Again, I am trying to argue that the 2nd Amendment applies at the national and state level but the 1st Amendment precludes and prohibits national involvement concerning religion at the state level.ThanksP.S. Warning, some of the stuff they called me, especially in archived file "Take That ACLU Part 4" is PG-13 or worse. I was not called every name in the book but they were getting kind of close. This is a nasty bunch.

salzo · January 2002

The first amendment does not bar governmental interference in religious matters, it bars congress from doing so. The so called "bill of rights" was never inteneded to be a protector of the individuals of the country from the individual states. However, the fourteenth is used to do just that.Seperation of church and state, was devised by a few judges, so that they could ignore the "or prohibition thereof" part of the first amendment. It is a crock. The first amendment in no way can be legitamately used to bar the states. The amendment is directed at congress. When one considers that the amendment basically states that congress cannot establish, or prohibit religion, it is impossible to use the amendment to be binding on the states, because you cant in no way do both(establish, and prohibit) at the same time. Hence, the "seperation of church and state" concept was dreamed up to negate the "or prohibition thereof" part of the amendment.

Happiness is a warm gun

salzo · January 2002

And I do agree that the second should not be binding on the states, and neither should any of the other amendments in the bill of rights.

Happiness is a warm gun

NOTPARS · January 2002

For Salzo: My point exactly. The First Amendment is a prohibition on the right of Congress to pass any type of law interfering with religious practices. So, it does not apply to the states. But, what the liberal/atheist moderator is arguing is that, if the 1st Amendment does not apply to the States, then neither does the Second so States have a right to interfere with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now, tell me what you think of this. I argue, as you so well stated, the 1st Amendment is a prohibition of the use of federal (national government) power and interference in religious matters. But, the 2nd Amendment is a statement of a right owned by individuals, not States or national governments, which cannot be infringed by anyone. And, as I do teach high school government (that's right, a NRA member, pro-gun high school teacher), I argue that the 14th Amendment was written to guarantee rights to new black citizens and not an extension of the grasp of national control over the states.

NOTPARS · January 2002

For Salzo part two: Many, if not most of the teachers I know are very anti-gun. Sometimes they express this view to the students. Soooooooooo, my students recently asked me what I thought of guns. I told them: "Well, you can never have too many."Some were shocked. Then they asked how many were enough. I replied: "One more than the next one you are going to buy." They seem to like my point of view a lot more than that of the anti-gun ninnies.Take care.

salzo · January 2002

That was good advice you gave to your students.The wonderful thing about the 14th amendment, as far as the ACLU crowd is concerned, is how ambigious it is. The 14th amendment is a trump card for anyone who wants to challenge something on constitutional grounds, when there is no constitutional issue. You might think it was about giving equal rights to black people, but others view it as a policing amendment against the states. Check out New Jerseys resolution to withdraw from 14th amendment ratification. They spell out how the fact that the amendment is so ambigious, will lead to future generations squeezing any meaning they want out of it, and how it will make states subservient to the Federal government.When the constitution was debating, all of the states expressed concerns about a federal government that had more power than the states. The constitution specifically spells out what the inferior(Federal) governments responsibilities would be, and also spells out that anything not reserved specifically to the Feds, was a state issue. The 14th amendment made the fears that the founders were concerned about a reality.As far as the second being protected by the 14th, I dont think you can have it both ways. If the first amendment is "protected", (and I use the term loosely), from state interference(even though that is most absurd, being that the amendment deals specifically with congress, and it was a protection afforded to the STATES, and not the people, as all of the other amendments were in the bill of rights), than I can see how the second would also have to be protected(and it is very interesting to note that the ACLU types think all of the bill of rights are protections from the state EXCEPT the second amendment)from state interference.The problem I have, is the entire concept of the 14th protecting the bill of rights from state intervention is flawed, and is in direct contrast with the whole purpose of the bill of rights(protection of the states from federal interference). The 14th amendment does not strengthen the bill of rights, it makes it void. The states no longer have control.And since I do not believe that the 1st can be used against the states, I do not think that the second, or any other amendment can be used against the states. But I would say, that if we have to accept the interpetation that the 14th is the great protector(as is the present judicial interpetation) I cannot see why the second would not also be protected(And if anything, the fact that they DO NOT think the second should be protected clearly illustrates that their motifs are not about being protected at all-it is completely about control).

Happiness is a warm gun

salzo · January 2002

NOTPARS- You know what, I was thinking. Maybe you have been saying this all along, but one could certainly make the argument that ALL of the amendmets are protections from state interference, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 1ST amendment, because that is the only amendment that specifically refers to congress. I do not find that to be intellectually honest, but then again, the arguments from the left are not honest eityher.You can also point out during debates on the 14th amendment, that the second amendment was always specifically cited as needing protection(see Halbrook, THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED)

Happiness is a warm gun

turbo · January 2002

Those other forums that have a moderator that controls the flow of info, is like sitting in a card game, the dealer holds the cards and deals out what he wants to.It's good to have the entire wording of these amendments in front of you when discussing these issues.On the other hand, liberals will put their spin on any way they want to interpert anything and no matter what it says they read what they want into it.They remind me of those religions that have changed the wording in the bible and come up with their version, which makes it easier to sale their interpretation, Now you know why they want to change the Constitution and rewrite it so, their view point is believeable.It's all bunk!!

NOTPARS · January 2002

For Salzo: I like the way you write and, if you don't mind, I am going to download and print it so I can use what you said as part of the debate. Sometimes I have what I consider to be a good grasp of an idea or issue and then when I hear someone else, I realize I've missed some important points. That is why this forum is so good!

NOTPARS · January 2002

For Turbo: Amen to what you said. On the other forum, www.newsmax.com, forum section, culture and society category, the moderator not only took sides, she bashed me too. She told me the book, Original Intent by David Barton was full of sh** and she didn't bleep out the word. Mr. Barton is a fine man and I have researched his book well. Then, the moderator told me I was full of the same stuff. In addition, although the forum warns against this, she allowed the Leftists and Anti-Christians to call me a jacka** teacher, jerk teacher, idiot teacher, moron, stupid, obnoxious fundamentalist, low life S.O.B. and she never once told them to stop. When others got on there to defend me, she attacked them, suspended some, and warned us all to stop our attacks. I, and no one on my side, used profanity, threats, or anything of that nature. I told the moderator so. She then,on the thread forum, called me a compulsive liar and I ought to go to a liars forum and I was sick in the head. I e-mailed her and challenged her on the way the forum was being managed. You see, I have saved every posting and told her that her accusations against me were lies and could prove it. I returned but I pretty much have to watch what I say. What shocked me was how much this forum is dominated by militant homosexuals, Leftists, and anti-Christians and NewsMax is supposed to be a conservative news outlet. I am not saying liberals, homosexuals, atheists and so forth should not be on the forum. No way. But I was surprised to see that they totally dominate it. What started it all was I simply announced that I was a high school teacher, I was wearing a Christian Christmas tie, and had a Judeo-Christian document (Ten Commandments) on a wall somewhere in my classroom. When I came back from the break I could not believe all the names I was called by atheists and some comments that were plain slanderous. The anger and hostility really caught me off guard. Why waste my time? Many people who are undecided logged on as well as students. They all got to hear that I was a liar, a fiend, a whacko fundamentalist, a jerk, and a really bad teacher and I thought they might like to hear the other side. In the meantime, this has forced me to become more serious about my research in order to defend what I believe especially the U.S. Constitution! Anyway, didn't mean to get so long winded. Its nice to be on a forum with civil polite people for a change.

NOTPARS · January 2002

For Turbo, Part 2: I forgot to add, because of all the attacks on me, and the thread becoming so long, I would start a new one (the first was titled Take That ACLU). And then they censored me. Several really angry posters told the moderator to shut me down when I went to Part 5. Then, a bunch of people, including the moderator, really trashed me out on part 4 and 5, she put a lock on both, and shut down all but Part 3. I then went to the Government Category to protest this censorship. I never have used profanity, slander, or threats. They censored all my postings on the Government site of this forum. I went to Miscellaneous, managed to get on, then the moderator from culture and society found me there, charge me with starting all the name calling, called me a liar, and then closed that thread too!!! They would attack, post lies, and then close it so I could not respond. I am back on my old thread part 3. But if you go to it you won't believe how long it is. I have stayed completely away from any form of insult or counter-attack this time. I just don't respond to the personal stuff anymore. If you ask why I didn't complain to NewsMax, well, I did. Sent them e-mails and lists to back up the fact that I had been trashed, slandered, and that the moderator had joined in this as well. They wrote back and said they didn't have time to respond to e-mails. Anyway, this forum is much more to my liking. And Wendya, if you have followed me from NewsMax to this forum, I am looking at all my postings. Care to call me a liar again?

turbo · January 2002

So, what was the moderators name?Lets visit that site and rattle some chains, there.

NOTPARS · January 2002

For Turbo, Her name is Wendya. But becareful. People from the conservative/Christian points of view seem to get tossed off pretty quickly (just ask Delta Ranger) whereas people from her side can cuss up a storm and not even be reprimanded! She called me full of shi**, told me I was a compulsive liar, and more. I told her that this was low class for a moderator. She got even angrier. Soooooo, if you go over there, under what name would you post and what subject? I only ask so I can jump in on your side. Over there I have to use the name NOPALOALTO. Once they see my name, the trolls come out of the woodwork and attack! But boy was it fun

turbo · January 2002

Notpars,You can change your username anytime you want, one thing about havig problems logging in and out of this forums, sometimes you have to go to profiles and prefernecs and clean out your cookies file, somehow or other they get corrupted which makes it hard for you to get in, and you can also, set up your firewall on the internet server options, so noone in the internet, can access your personal info, and thereby corrupt your access.I've posted a few answers to responses on the political, gun rights , and wendays forum. In fact I already incurred the wrathh of her and her cronies, but I've decided to ignore her name calling, and intolerance.My username is Turboc.I've been enjoying a little time over there.I doubt they locked you up, just clear you cookies and change you password from time to time. What your name do you use?

turbo · January 2002

PS I have had The Storm Cometh on the run on two articles he posted, already.He deleted one of them, the other one under Gun Rights all but died on the vine, when I pointed out his article was two years old. And by the way I did get there on the one you were involve before they deleted parts, they moved it to Gun Right Forum.

NOTPARS · February 2002

For Turbo: I apologize for the tardy response. We had a heck of an ice storm here in Western Missouri, lost our power for almost a week, and so I have been off the forums. I go by NOPALOALTO on the Newsmax forum. It all has to do with the city of Palo Alto in California where I was a police officer for ten years (People's Republic Of Palo Alto if that helps). What name do you go by on the Newsmax forum? Did you say it was Turboc? Anyway, the Storm cometh, what did he/she? say? Was it about gun rights? Let me know when you want to go over there and what thread. I'll go with you. It will be fun!

Fitz · February 2002

That was an interesting post. My interpretation of the Bill of Rights rests heavily on the 10th Ammendment. I believe that all of them, including subsequent ones, must not violate the 10th. That means I believe that somewhere around 85% of the Federal Government is unconstitutional.I added a new post over there (Newsmax)under Government called "Liberals are Socialists" that you might want to check out. I thought it might be just what Wendy and her comrades need.

turbo · February 2002

I been over there, and I'v posted some, saw your posts, they've moved everything around, what a bunch of winers, I have posted some under Government and politics.I am not liberal and I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.With regard to the tenth amendment, the states are represented at the Federal Government level by senators and congressmn, and they (the individual state representatives) make laws that affect their own states, so I would be careful when saying all laws that are created in congress are illegal.Each state consults with it's state representatives, and has the power to rein in laws being considered for passage, which might infringe into the states constitution rights.Ultimately, the people are at fault for electing and re electing these senators and congressmen that submit bills, which the states have exclusive rights to.Anyhow, it's been interesting, look to see you guys their.

NOTPARS · February 2002

For Fitz, Muchas apologias, I was gone for a while and missed your posts. After I became a high school government teacher almost 10 years ago, I too discovered the Tenth Amendment. And, I have spent most of those almost 10 years studying Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is a specific list of what they national (general) government may do. Anything not on the list is forbidden to it. And, the Tenth Amendment restates this fact. I would have to agree, probably 85%, if not more, of the what the national government is doing is unconstitutional. But nobody, other than the people on this forum, seems to care.

salzo · February 2002

NOTPARS_ What do you make out of article six; "This constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding"

Happiness is a warm gun

Fitz · March 2002

Salzo,My 2 cents: Article 6, clause 2 of the US Constitution is kind of a pre-Bill of Rights idea that I believe was written to prevent territories or States from "overruling" Constitutional notions. In short, I believe it basically says, "US soveriegnty is not to be questioned and no local laws may violate those in the Constitution".The 10th Ammendment, on the other hand, refers to the Bill of Rights AND the Constitution and was added when they realized something stronger was needed. It basically (and clearly) says, "Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is State juristiction". That means, for example, since there is no mention of providing for education in the Constitution, the Federal Board of Education is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.Fitz

Bill of Rights as it applies to the States

Comments