Limited Fed vs Incorporation of 2A

[andyman]

I know I'm going to start a fire here but I'm a little conflicted. I understand that incorporation of the 2A is probably our best shot at getting the right to carry recognized in MD, but I have trouble reconciling in my mind my belief in limited federal powers and the fed being the protector of my rights. I'm sure I'm going to get blown up over this but I can't help thinking that I'm being a little hypocritical. I'm wishing the fed would take over the authority over my 2A rights while thinking the BATFE, DOE, and many other fed departments shouldn't even exist because they have no constitutional authority. I've always thought the BoR was a limit on fed power to legislate, not a guarantee, a recognition if you will of rights that were not negotiable. Now it seems we're hoping that the SCOTUS works it's activist magic on the 2A issue while fighting against activist judges. Someone please slap me if I'm way of base here, or explain the gross error of my reasoning.

andy

 

[X-Factor]

Yeah this has been bothering me a little as well...

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Remember, Madison argued that a BoR wasn't needed as if you start to specifically list out the rights of citizens, it would make it easy for the government to infringe upon them, and additionally, take away the rights specifically NOT spelled out.

Our libertarian founders were looking for a compromise that would limit the scope of the Federal Government on the people and the States; unfortunately, they didn't see the perversion of the states to infringe upon the individuals as well. If the 14th Amendment was put into place to rectify that, it cannot be selectively enforced, and must apply equally to all individuals.

It's a rock and a hard place arguement, but if you think that the founders had just sacrificed life, limb, and wealth to obtain their individual freedom and equal creation, they might have specifically placed these restrictions upon the states as well. Damn, I need to go back and actually learn the real history of the Constitution, since they don't teach that in high school or college any more.

 

[andyman]

section 1 of the 14A seems to implicitly give the authority to the fed to preserve these rights. That seems to make sense now. Now the big question is if I just figured this out with my limited resources why are we even having this discussion or a national level???

andy

 

[Llyrin]

The Feds would not be taking authority over our rights. They would simply be clarifying that the Constitution applies to the states as well as the Feds. In this way, they would be stopping another (domestic) government from infringing upon our rights.

 

[andyman]

The Feds would not be taking authority over our rights. They would simply be clarifying that the Constitution applies to the states as well as the Feds. In this way, they would be stopping another (domestic) government from infringing upon our rights.

Yes but here in MD someone is going to have to force our gov to comply, that would fall on the fed I assume, that is the what I mean by the fed having authority over our rights

andy

 

[teratos]

Yes but here in MD someone is going to have to force our gov to comply, that would fall on the fed I assume, that is the what I mean by the fed having authority over our rights

andy

By definition, nobody has "authority" over our rights. They are our Rights.

 

[andyman]

probably not the best choice of words, I'm refering to the responsibility of enforcing the protection of these rights.

andy

 

[zombiehunter]

probably not the best choice of words, I'm refering to the responsibility of enforcing the protection of these rights.

andy

I'm pretty sure that that falls on the Citizen. Ballots, petitions, letters, calls, faxes, emails, door-to-door, the eff-Frosh campaign...it's our responsibility first and the Supreme Court's second.

 

[andyman]

I'm sorry Zombie, of coarse I think that responsibility is first ours. I was speaking of the gov entity who's job it is to police that. It would appear from this thread that would fall on the SCOTUS.

andy

 

[teratos]

Hmmm....who does have responsibility for ensuring these rights are not infringed upon? The Framers of the Constitution felt that much of it lay with the Citizenry. The entire system of Government is laid out to keep the bulk of the power OUTof the hands of politicians. The tools with which to do this? The Bill of Rights. The 1A assures our right to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal. The 2A assures our ability to take back the government by force should those in power assign themselves too much power. It goes on....

Our legislative and to a large degree, judicial branches of government do not read the 2A within the context it was written. It doesn't cover hunting, nor sporting guns. It protects military style weapons more. I feel the NFA is Unconstitutional. These were a bunch of guys who just participated in an armed Revolution to get rid of a Tyrannical system of government. It makes sense that they would make provisions to ensure that armed revolt remains a possibility in the future should the government run wild.

 

[andyman]

Hmmm....who does have responsibility for ensuring these rights are not infringed upon? The Framers of the Constitution felt that much of it lay with the Citizenry. The entire system of Government is laid out to keep the bulk of the power OUTof the hands of politicians. The tools with which to do this? The Bill of Rights. The 1A assures our right to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal. The 2A assures our ability to take back the government by force should those in power assign themselves too much power. It goes on....

Our legislative and to a large degree, judicial branches of government do not read the 2A within the context it was written. It doesn't cover hunting, nor sporting guns. It protects military style weapons more. I feel the NFA is Unconstitutional. These were a bunch of guys who just participated in an armed Revolution to get rid of a Tyrannical system of government. It makes sense that they would make provisions to ensure that armed revolt remains a possibility in the future should the government run wild.

I believe this fully, the 2A has nothing to do with hunting. It is about the citizens being able to cast off the gov if the need arises. With weapons that are appropriate to that task.

andy

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Hmmm....who does have responsibility for ensuring these rights are not infringed upon? The Framers of the Constitution felt that much of it lay with the Citizenry. The entire system of Government is laid out to keep the bulk of the power OUTof the hands of politicians. The tools with which to do this? The Bill of Rights. The 1A assures our right to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal. The 2A assures our ability to take back the government by force should those in power assign themselves too much power. It goes on....

Our legislative and to a large degree, judicial branches of government do not read the 2A within the context it was written. It doesn't cover hunting, nor sporting guns. It protects military style weapons more. I feel the NFA is Unconstitutional. These were a bunch of guys who just participated in an armed Revolution to get rid of a Tyrannical system of government. It makes sense that they would make provisions to ensure that armed revolt remains a possibility in the future should the government run wild.

How's that educated electorate quote go?

 

[teratos]

How's that educated electorate quote go?

Who ever heard of such a thing?

 

[MDFF2008]

Honestly, I've always believed activist judges get a bad rap sometimes. They aren't always bad, and they aren't always good.

It's about striking a balance between making law, and rubber stamping law.

 

[teratos]

Honestly, I've always believed activist judges get a bad rap sometimes. They aren't always bad, and they aren't always good.

It's about striking a balance between making law, and rubber stamping law.

A Judge's job is to apply the law. There are some aspects of law which requires absolutely NO interpretation. The Bill of Rights, like the 10 Commandments is laid out in a rather simple fashion. Neither goes on for pages and pages. They are both kind of a "Rules for Dummies". The Judges need to rule in favor of the law (especially the Constitution, which trumps all) whether they like it or not.

There should, IMHO, be a system by which the PEOPLE can remove an activist Judge if there is good and substantial reason. For the purpose my argument, I will pick an Amendment at random....let's use the 2nd . Those SCOTUS Justices who choose to rule against the 2A as establishing the right of the people to keep and bear arms and mandating that said right not be infringed should fear losing their seat. See how simple this is...I used the words from the Amendment....no need for twisting the words, pretty clear to everyone what it means. If a SCOTUS Justice cannot make the interpretation that my 7 year old can, then they need not be on the SCOTUS. There needs to be a national referendum via which we can vote them off. As I see it, the Judicial branch of the Govt. is not under control of the people.

 

[andyman]

Honestly, I've always believed activist judges get a bad rap sometimes. They aren't always bad, and they aren't always good.

It's about striking a balance between making law, and rubber stamping law.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The constitution very carefully gives NO power to make law to any judge. The SOLE power of legislature belongs to the peoples representatives in congress.

andy

 

[andyman]

begin rant

Our country was founded on the principle that all authority rests in the citizens. These citizens choose to have a national government to facilitate things that are more easily do on a large scale. The rules of that government are called the U. S. Constitution. At no time did we relinquish our authority, we just chose to have it concentrated in a central body. Judges are hired to apply the existing law strictly and fairly to complicated life situations. They do not have the right to twist the law when it doesn't seem to apply. Only the legislature, the peoples elected representatives have the authority to make or modify the law, because they have the implicit authority of representing the people by whom they were elected. If they don't represent their constituency well they will be removed and replaced. We are now in a situation where much of this country doesn't grasp the fundamentals of our laws or the importance of maintaining this difficult balance. I fear we are at a tipping point were if the pendulum doesn't swing back soon we will if fact loose what makes our country different forever. If at any other time in history Congress had tried to spend 1/4 of our GDP on a 3000 page bill that no one had even read there would have been riots, but we have been conditioned to tolerate this type of behavior so we do nothing significant other than write some letters and bitch on the internet

end rant

sorry guys I just had to get that out

andy

 

[fightinbluhen51]

A Judge's job is to apply the law. There are some aspects of law which requires absolutely NO interpretation. The Bill of Rights, like the 10 Commandments is laid out in a rather simple fashion. Neither goes on for pages and pages. They are both kind of a "Rules for Dummies". The Judges need to rule in favor of the law (especially the Constitution, which trumps all) whether they like it or not.

There should, IMHO, be a system by which the PEOPLE can remove an activist Judge if there is good and substantial reason. For the purpose my argument, I will pick an Amendment at random....let's use the 2nd . Those SCOTUS Justices who choose to rule against the 2A as establishing the right of the people to keep and bear arms and mandating that said right not be infringed should fear losing their seat. See how simple this is...I used the words from the Amendment....no need for twisting the words, pretty clear to everyone what it means. If a SCOTUS Justice cannot make the interpretation that my 7 year old can, then they need not be on the SCOTUS. There needs to be a national referendum via which we can vote them off. As I see it, the Judicial branch of the Govt. is not under control of the people.

There already exists a removal process, and it's called impeachment. Unfortunately, Congress has abrogated yet another one of their Constitutional duties, just like they did with the Federal Reserve.

 

[teratos]

The problem is that the impeachment power resides with the Congress. In theory, they are the representatives of the people, in fact they are going whatever they want. We have no true representation. The Constitution and the bail-out bill are similar in that none in Congress seem to have read it.

Now that we have the means to communicate instantly, and really have little need for elected representatives. We can vote for ourselves. Imagine the savings if we shrunk the government down, had people express their own views. Lobbyists would hold no sway over the outcome since they can't bribe everyone. It won't happen, but it is a dream of mine.