Judge rules state's gun laws prevail

This is a discussion on Judge rules state's gun laws prevail within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by cphilip However I keep also going back to the contention that Powers were instilled to the Congress, not something we wish to ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55

Thread: Judge rules state's gun laws prevail

  1. #46
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    However I keep also going back to the contention that Powers were instilled to the Congress, not something we wish to identify as a separate entity called "Federal Government" and all those limited powers are controlled by representatives of each state. Elected by the People from whom all powers are granted. Any powers are specifically given to Congress.... a group of state representatives. Not to "the Federal Government".
    This is incorrect. The states do not control the Federal government, the Constitution governs. Just as state constitutions govern the states, the Constitution governs the Federal government. It is absultely distinct from the states. In fact, the powers and prohibitions of the states are clearly enmerated in the Constitution.

    It is simply erroneous to keep concluding that the Federal government is not run by the States. It is completely. It was carefully crafted to be so. And it is run by them.
    I am surprised you are still convinced of this. The role of the Federal government is completely different than the role of the states and it is t certainly not run by the states.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    With regard to Marbury v. Madison, SD wrote, "They can declare themselves anything they want. It has no force of law."

    Ask Richard Nixon if it has the force of law next time you have an opportunity to chat.

    You are attempting to utterly ignore 200 years of jurisprudence.

    Worse, let me make my point by telling you about a trilogy by Collean McCullough--author of the Thornbirds. She wrote a series of historical fiction
    about Rome from circa 120 BC to just prior to the ascension of Julius Ceasar to power.

    Of course, they had no written constitution. They had traditions. They had "the way things are done," "and the way things are not done." E.g., The Roman Army marching on The Senate fell in the latter category.

    Every time politicians or military leaders broke the mores, the traditions of how Rome was to be governed, they brought calamity upon themselves and the citizens of Rome.

    Back to our Constitution. Marbury v Madison is "the way it is done." If you want to bring calamity on the US, then continue to push your point until enough people join you. But don't expect a good outcome. Breaking the mores and well established traditions of a society, and breaking its legal traditions, can only lead to calamity.

    That is the last word I will have on this subject.

  4. #48
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Let's give the great guys who started this all some credit. Maybe even the deity some credit. Whatever they did, what ever their reasoning, it wasn't, " hey, let's add some superfluous stuff for the heck of it."
    It wasn't for 'the heck of it.' It was a political ploy to ensure that New York and Virginia would ratify the Constitution. It is important to no that the Consitution was ratified in 1788 and the Bill of Rights was ratified a distant three years later. It doesn't seem like a long time looking back, but it was at the time.

    There is nothing superfluous about The Bill of Rights. Without it, the dang document would: a) never have been ratified; b) never have stood the test of time.
    The Constitution was ratified before the Bill of Rights was added. And yes, without it we would be a far greater nation with MORE individual liberties. The anti-Federalists erred horrendously as they were so afraid of previous central governments that they made certain our government would similarly expand and contro their lives. But still, the anti-Feralists in their current form are in denial.

    [QUOTE}Every word is there for a reason, and given the brilliance of the dudes who wrote it, every word was meant to convey an exact meaning which was fully understood in their day.[/QUOTE]

    I agree. But that does not make the first eight Amendments any less superfluous. That they are pointless is clarified in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    Yes, you could have a US Government set up as ours is, with three branches and coordinate state government, but our way of life would be drastically different were it not for the Bill of Rights.
    Yes, it would. But not in the way you think.

    In fact, we just might not be holding conversations openly here were it not for the big ten.
    Why not? Where do you find that Congress has a power to silence the people?

    (Man, I've heard all sorts of political and legal argument in my life, but I sure as heck have never ever heard someone argue for disowning The Bill of Rights before. Yikes.)
    I am not disowning the Amerndments. I am only pointing out they add nothing to the prohibition of excess power already encompassed in the text of the Constitution.

  5. #49
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    With regard to Marbury v. Madison, SD wrote, "They can declare themselves anything they want. It has no force of law."

    Ask Richard Nixon if it has the force of law next time you have an opportunity to chat.
    How do you think Mashall's power grab affected Richard Nixon?

    You are attempting to utterly ignore 200 years of jurisprudence.
    No, not ignore it but expose its supreme weaknesses. Th mindset that people can circumvent our Constitutional republic and have five men in robes determinenational policy is preposterous.

    Worse, let me make my point by telling you about a trilogy by Collean McCullough--author of the Thornbirds. She wrote a series of historical fiction
    about Rome from circa 120 BC to just prior to the ascension of Julius Ceasar to power.

    Of course, they had no written constitution. They had traditions. They had "the way things are done," "and the way things are not done." E.g., The Roman Army marching on The Senate fell in the latter category.

    Every time politicians or military leaders broke the mores, the traditions of how Rome was to be governed, they brought calamity upon themselves and the citizens of Rome.
    I thought you were going to argue my point from your story. The tradidtions of our nation are encompassed in the Constitution (and yes, the Bill of Rights.) When Marshall proclaimed the superiority of the Judiciary of over the other two Branches, so much so that people need to consider them the Final Authority is NOT the way things are done in America. That is why we see horrendous opinions like Dred Scott and Kelo. Jackson, despite the fact he was wrong in idealogy, was absolutely correct in his admonishment of the Court with his famed, "Marshall made his decision now let him enforce it."

    Back to our Constitution. Marbury v Madison is "the way it is done." If you want to bring calamity on the US, then continue to push your point until enough people join you. But don't expect a good outcome. Breaking the mores and well established traditions of a society, and breaking its legal traditions, can only lead to calamity.
    On the contrary. It is the power grab from the judiciary that has already brought calamity to the nation. The Supreme Court is responsible for the Civil War. How much more calamitous can you get?

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Self Defense: I don't conclude that the Supreme Court has anything other than the power that it has excercised over the past 200yrs. Secondly, it really doesn't matter what my opinion is, what matters is the law as set forth in precedent.

    Of course I know it's a circular argument that because they say they are the final word on the Constitution, it follows that they are the final word, but I don't conclude anything. It doesn't matter whether I conclude anything or not, no one cares what I think. What matters is the system that has followed the decision and it has become powerful precedent. Any Constitutional law scholar knows that Marshalls words were Ipse dixit, however those words have been followed and regardless of what you and I think about it, we have to work with the system that is in place. Thus far, it has worked pretty good IMO, with a few anomalies here and there.

    Also, while it is potentially dangerous to have 9 people in robes deciding what the law is, we do have recourse if they stray too far from what the people want. People simply need to vote and insure that the future President will appoint the kind of justices they wish to have on the bench, and if things get too bad the constitution can be amended to over ride the Supreme Court. Perhaps a court packing scheme, like the one FDR almost tried, might be allowable in extreme cirumstances if people became fed up with the court.

    I think the idea of states rights is wonderful, and still rather effective in some contexts, and I don't like expansion of Federal Powers. Heck, I'm from the South and I can tell you that I don't agree with what was done during the War of Northern agression, but there is nothing I can do to change the fact that a big chunk of Federalism died in 1865, and much more has disapeared under the common welfare and commerce language.

    Perhaps the Founders never pondered that the greatest infringements on citizens rights would come from within their own state, but regardless of the background that is what has happened and it has been up to the Supreme Court to put a stop to it time and time again. I don't agree with everything they do, but by and large from a civil liberties perspective they have given expansive reading to the constitution and that has protected the rights of the citizenry against oppresive government actors at all levels.

    I'm just saying that arguing over what should have or could have been, really does nothing more than waste time when work needs to be done and the tools are in place to get it done using current precident. Why beat your head against the wall when there is an open door you can pass through that gets you through the wall?

    Good day.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  7. #51
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by sgtD View Post
    Self Defense: I don't conclude that the Supreme Court has anything other than the power that it has excercised over the past 200yrs. Secondly, it really doesn't matter what my opinion is, what matters is the law as set forth in precedent.
    Are you saying you deny the Judiciary has overstepped its Constitutional mandate?

    I know it's a circular argument that because they say they are the final word on the Constitution, it follows that they are the final word. Any Constitutional law scholar knows that Marshalls words were Ipse dixit, however those words have been followed and regardless of what you and I think about it, we have to work with the system that is in place. Thus far, it has worked pretty good IMO.
    I was under the impression the system in place is the Constitution. I am incredulous that anyone thinks the judicial review 'works pretty good.' I assume you agree with Kelo? You agree with Dred Scott? You agree with Miller? You agree with Plessy? Obviously, the Supreme Court has made mistakes and they make them regularly based on the political makeup of the Court. The perception that they are the final authority in America is not only wrongheaded but wrong.

    Also, while it is potentially dangerous to have 9 people in robes deciding what the law is, we do have recourse if they stray too far from what the people want. People simply need to vote and insure that the future President will appoint the kind of justices they wish to have on the bench, and if things get too bad the constitution can be amended to over ride the Supreme Court. Perhaps a court packing scheme, like the one FDR almost tried, might be allowable in extreme cirumstances if people became fed up with the court.
    Indeed, those are potential remedies. I'm sure you are aware of the amendment to the California constitution on the ballot because the robed rulers usurped the rights of the people in allowing homosexual marriage. But the fact of the matter is that those remedies are unnecessary because the Court does not have the power it purports to have, no matter how many years have passed

    Slavery was part of society for four score and seven until it was eradicated. Judicial usurpation for 200 years will seem small after another two hundred years of our great nation. It is never too late to correct a wrong.


    Since you seem to appreciate the anti-Federalism stance so much, and have such great respect for the founders, as we all should have, perhaps we should adopt the system that Jefferson supported, wherein we conviene a Constitutional convention every 20 yrs and just throw the old one out and make a new Constitution. I say this to illustrate that not all of the Founders agreed on every point and some of the founder's views have been adopted and others have not.
    Holy moly! I'm a staunch Federalist and find the anti-Federalist stance to be completely paranoid. Of course, the Federalists had two distinct camps, the Hamiltonians, who preferred a national government and advocated standing armies and national banks (to bring the country together) and those like Adams, who simply wanted to live as he did, in peace with security. Jefferson, on the other hand, promoted anarchy, dealt with our enemies (Napolean) and advocated continued revolution. He was also a dirty politician. Jefferson has been held too kindly by history.

    I think the idea of states rights is wonderful, and still rather effective in some contexts, and I don't like expansion of Federal Powers. Heck, I'm from the South and I can tell you that I don't agree with what was done during the War of Northern agression, but there is nothing I can do to change the fact that a big chunk of Federalism died in 1865, and much more has disapeared under the common welfare and commerce language.
    If the Court would not have ruled that slaves were not people, the Civil War would never have occurred. The Missouri compromise was acceptable and, in time, slavery would have dissolved because the PEOPLE knew it as wrong.

    If I were king (I mean a Supreme Court Justice,) I would propose a Constitutional Amendent that the general welfare clause would be stricken and replaced with more specific language.

    I'm just saying that arguing over what should have or could have been, really does nothing more than waste time when work needs to be done and the tools are in place to get it done using current precident.
    I don't think it is a waste of time at all. I certainly recognize that we must operate in the current environment but I see no reason to abandon my principles and the principles of the Founders because they are unpopular.

    By the way, are you still attending law school? If you dont mind me asking, which school and what type of law do you want to practice?
    Last edited by SelfDefense; July 18th, 2008 at 01:06 AM. Reason: fix the typos

  8. #52
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by mrreynolds View Post
    The man's an idjut......(idiot/jerk). A RIGHT can never be a PRIVELEDGE...that's why we need to vote the right judges into office. An orange is not an apple.....
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Are you saying you deny the Judiciary has overstepped its Constitutional mandate??
    No, I'm saying it doesn't matter what my opinion is on the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I was under the impression the system in place is the Constitution. I an increduous that anyone thinks the judicial review 'works pretty good.' I assume you agree with Kelo? You agree with Dred Scott? You agree with Miller? You agree with Plessy? Obviously, the Supreme Court has made mistakes and they make them regularly based on the political makeup of the Court. The perception that they are the final authority in America is not only wrong headed but wrong.?
    I didn't say that they don't make stupid arbitrary rulings, but in time they will be corrected with the right Justices in place.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Indeed, those are potential remedies. I'm sure you are aware of the amendment to the California constitution on the ballot because the robed rulers usurped the rights of the people in allowing homosexual marriage. But the fact of the matter is that those remedies are unnecessary because the Court does not have the power ith purports to have, no matter how manyyears have passed
    Yes, a prime example of judicail activism which I do not agree with, but these cases are the exception, not the rule. Again, the people of Cal. can amend their Constituion if they feel the need to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Slavery was part of society for four score and seven until it was eradicated. It is never too late to correct a wrong.
    Yes, and wrongs can be corrected through the channles currently in operation. Jim Crowe was also a part of state laws after slavery, and who was it that set the record straight on that issue? It wasn't the legislatures of the states. It was the court and Congress. An illustration of my point in the original post.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    If the Court would not have ruled that slaves were not people, the Civil War would never have occurred. The Missouri compromise was acceptable and, in time, slavery would have dissolved because the PEOPLE knew it as wrong.
    Proabaly not true, since the war was really about much more than slavery, mostly it was about states rights and economics. Like all wars it was about who controlled the money, but that is another discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    If I were king (I mean a Supreme Court Justice,) I would propose a Constitutional Amendent that the general welfare clause would be stricken and replaced with more specific language.
    I sense you are being sarcastic here, becuase as you well know the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and Supreme Court Justices cannot propose legislation or amendments.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't think it is a waste of time at all. I certainly recognize that we must operate in the current environment but I see no reason to abandon my principles and the principles of the Founders because they are unpopular.
    You need not abondon anything, but the most efficient way to return to priciples lost is through existing channels, even if you don't agree with how they operate.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    By the way, are you still attending law school? If you dont mind me asking, which school and what type of law do you want to practice?
    Yes, I'm in my 2nd year in a law school in Kansas, but would rather not divulge my exact location on the internet.

    I want to work for the NRA of course.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  10. #54
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    SelfDefense

    "The Constitution was ratified before the Bill of Rights was added. And yes, without it we would be a far greater nation with MORE individual liberties."

    While you are accurate in stating the Constitution was ratified before the adoption of the Bill of Rights you ignor the fact that the ratification was in part based on the sentiment that a Bill of Rights would be introduced and become part of the Constitution. We can argue about who wanted it and why they wanted it but it is slight of hand to claim it wasn't an important part of the process of ultimately ratifying the Constitution.

    "During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

    On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights."

  11. #55
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    SelfDefense

    One more point, things left unsaid open the door for all kinds of mischief. The federal government has used aspects of it Constitutional powers (I mentioned the commerce clause earlier) to reach into every area of life. The Bill of Rights was intended further clarify the powers and limitations of the federal government and minimize its ability to infringe on fundamental rights and is far from trivial.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Federal judge rules for NM open carrier
    By C Paul Lincoln in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 10th, 2009, 10:39 PM
  2. Judge rules against several proposed gun laws in Philadelphia
    By Cupcake in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 07:34 AM
  3. Judge, county official duel over gun laws: NY Judge stands his ground/enforces law
    By raysheen in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 13th, 2006, 10:59 PM
  4. Federal Judge Rules Against Pat Downs
    By Kat in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 1st, 2006, 02:30 AM

Search tags for this page

do state gun laws prevail over fed
,
does state gun law prevail
,

madison county ny pistol permit application

,
will reckless driving affect getting a weapons permit
Click on a term to search for related topics.