Originally Posted by Jim in CT
So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? The United States Constitution did not apply to the states? States were free to violate the constitution as they saw fit? I majored in math, not history, but that doesn't sound right at all. You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?
I said several times in various threads re the Constitution, including, I think, this one, that the enumerations of the Constitution grant unlimited (supreme) power WITHIN THOSE ENUMERATIONS. That is, within the limited powers that the Constitution grants to the federal government. That is what is meant by the phrase in article VI "in pursuance thereof." That is, as the article says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [When the Consitution refers to the United States it is referring to the federal government--when it refers to the separate states it says the "several States]which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"--in that sentence, if you follow the punctuation, thereof refers to the Constitution, in pursuance thereof means according to that Constitution. In essence, the article makes supreme any United States law THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. That is, Any law that falls within the enumerated powers given to it.
Those powers of legislation that are not included in the enumerated powers granted to the United States, are reserved to the several States and their people. There is no enumeration in the Constitution which gives the federal government power to regulate the people's right to own guns.
It has only been in recent SCOTUS decisions, if I remember correctly, that much of the Bill of Rights have been deemed to apply to the several States as well as the United States. But, certainly, in Madison's and Jefferson's time, the 2nd Amendment's restriction against government regulation did not apply to the several States.
"when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you"
Not so. I asked a question for the specific purpose of continuing the conversation. The supremacy clause is in the original draft of the constitution, I think, Article 6. It says pretty clearly that the US Constitution is the law of the land, "and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."
Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land in regard to what government can or cannot do and that referred mostly to the United States at the time it was written. It is (was) not the law of the land in instances of criminal and other legal matters which was left to the several States to create and apply. And United States law is supreme over the laws of the several States so long as U.S. law is within bounds of constitutional limitations. That is, within the scope of the enumerated powers the Constitution gives to the federal government.
That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.
No, the state of VA was not prohibited at that time from passing gun laws, nor was it subject to federal legislation re the ownership or carrying of arms. The U.S. government had no constitutional power, at that time, to regulate gun ownership. And the Constitution did not prohibit the several States from passing such laws.
We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.
|