Constitution Discussion...Living or Not?

This is a discussion on Constitution Discussion...Living or Not? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by BAC I was actually hoping you would answer the questions I posed, because they address even the reverse that you posed quite ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59

Thread: Constitution Discussion...Living or Not?

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,163

    OK, I'll take this one on

    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    I was actually hoping you would answer the questions I posed, because they address even the reverse that you posed quite well. If the United States were to repeal anything in the Bill of Rights that is similarly addressed and protected by my state constitution, what happens?

    -B
    Before the US could reverse a BOR right which might be enshrined in a state constitution as well, there are things likely to happen which would I think take control from the states.

    1) The US Constitution is changed by amendment. For this to happen there would need to be very broad popular support and it is likely states would also amend their own constitutions to go with the will of the people. In Texas, the Texas Constitution is a joke. It is amended by the dozen every time the legislature meets. We almost never fully understand what it is we are approving. So, I wouldn't count on state constitutions to offer much protection in the even of a US Constitutional amendment that was out of tune with a state's. In the popular frenzy, all would change.

    2) The US Constitution gets amended in more insidious ways. E.g., The State of CT abused the eminent domain rights of some residents of New London/Groton for the private benefit of Pfizer. The Supremes ignored the plain black letter language of the BOR and upheld CT's action. So, sometimes constitutional changes happen from the bottom up. The states are happy. And in this type of case, if a state had a strict eminent domain law on the books, you can bet the crooks would quickly get to the legislature to have them conform state law to the Federal judicial ruling. In this specific instance there have been a few states which passed some minor legislation seeming to offer protection, but the fact is local governments love being able to seize private property and turn it over to their friends in the development business. So, no protection from the state constitution, with few exceptions on this matter.

    Uncle (and innumerable special interests) are so powerful and pervasive that Federal changes will in today's world be crammed down the state's one way or another.

    I assure you, that had the SC ruled in Heller that 2 A was only a collective right, there would be state legislatures lining up to change their own state constitutions to stay in conformity. There would be judges lining up to reinterpret state statutes so that they are read as per a collective right only.

    What we have now is an untenable mess. We have a patch work quilt in which some components are seen as inviolable and others as mere guidance; in which in some instances the quilt covers only Uncle, and in other instances it covers the states, and in still other instances the provisions are just empty words on a piece of paper.

    I don't have an answer, but relying on the rulings some here think bring us a Utopian state's rights vision and that the individual states are the paragons of protective virtue of the individual--due to popular voting at the state level-- is patent nonsense.

    BAC, I think your way of looking at this is instructive, but I wouldn't look to the states to protect anyone from the excesses of the Federal Government. I'm well old enough to remember the Vietnam era draft. Massachusetts actually passed a law making it illegal and it was signed by the governor, and did exactly no good whatsoever for the young men of MA. States simply lack the power to stand up to Uncle no matter what their laws and constitutions say.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Hopyard, you list some examples that are pretty extreme. The draft is certainly in the Federal governments best interest, whether or not Vietnam was right or not. Not sure how this affects the BOR.

    Now for eminent domain I do not have an answer. I see many examples of what I think is abuse at all levels of governemt, so I am personally not a fan of this.
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  4. #33
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Hopyard, you still have not addressed the questions I posed. If the United States no longer recognized any part or parts of, or even the entire, Bill of Rights, what would happen to me, in Florida, where my state constitution provides identical protections?


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  5. #34
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by concealed View Post
    Hopyard, you list some examples that are pretty extreme. The draft is certainly in the Federal governments best interest, whether or not Vietnam was right or not. Not sure how this affects the BOR.

    Article I Section 8

    The Congress shall have power...

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

  6. #35
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Article I Section 8

    The Congress shall have power...

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    Somehow I knew this was coming. Thanks!
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  7. #36
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Article I Section 8

    The Congress shall have power...

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    A draft to fill/form a military is different than a mustering of the militia.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  8. #37
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    A draft to fill/form a military is different than a mustering of the militia.
    I certainly don't want to sidetrack this thread as I am anxiously awaiting Hopyard's responses.

    I think it is an interesting topic and does affect a thorough understanding of the Federal power and the Second Amendment.

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,163

    I'll try again

    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Hopyard, you still have not addressed the questions I posed. If the United States no longer recognized any part or parts of, or even the entire, Bill of Rights, what would happen to me, in Florida, where my state constitution provides identical protections?


    -B
    What will happen is your state will ignore its own constitution and you will be out of luck. Your legislature will amend your state's constitution to conform with the Federal rulings, or---the Feds will find a way to force their way of looking at things down your state's throat.

    I do not think you can count on your state's constitution for protection against the Federal interest. Just look at what happens when states try to regulate certain health insurance practices and get run over by Uncle using ERISA; and this abuse is supported by the supremes.

    Looking to your state for protection from Uncle is I think somewhat like looking to hide behind mama's skirt during an armed robbery, unless mama is Lima and your name is Garrett.

  10. #39
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    A draft to fill/form a military is different than a mustering of the militia.


    -B
    Another part of Art 1 Sec 8

    .......To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  11. #40
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    This is the third time you've dodged the question, Hopyard, so I'll ask it one more time. If the United States no longer recognized any part or parts of, or even the entire, Bill of Rights, what would happen to me, in Florida, where my state constitution provides identical protections?

    Concealed, PM inbound. I also don't want to distract from this subject, since it's a damn important subject and my question is a stab at the heart of it.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,163

    I don't know, not dodging.

    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    This is the third time you've dodged the question, Hopyard, so I'll ask it one more time. If the United States no longer recognized any part or parts of, or even the entire, Bill of Rights, what would happen to me, in Florida, where my state constitution provides identical protections?

    Concealed, PM inbound. I also don't want to distract from this subject, since it's a damn important subject and my question is a stab at the heart of it.

    -B
    I don't know what would happen, and it all depends. As I wrote earlier, I think your state would offer you no protection from Uncle. It would join Uncle in the political game or fashion of the day.

    I'm not dodging your question. But consider this, did the AWB violate the Constitutional provisions of places like OK and MO? Did anyone in those states challenge? WIth any success? Heck, in OK they couldn't even pass a law allowing you to keep a gun in your car against an employer's wishes without the Federales running to Court in Colorado and getting the thing overturned. Not much protection there from the state constitution.

    Anyone presently thinking their state constitutions will offer them protections in the hypothetical situation of drastic changes at the Federal level is I think not thinking clearly about how our society actually works, as opposed to pleasant theories about how it should work.

    We live in the world as it is, not as we wish it to be, and not as we imagine it should be, or imagine it is.

  13. #42
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We live in the world as it is, not as we wish it to be, and not as we imagine it should be, or imagine it is.
    You sum up what I stated elsewhere. I believe SD is correct in the founding fathers intention and I applaud his knowledge and diligence in defensing this. I also believe Hopyard is correct in the fact that his view is more in line with the way it really is, wether or not it is correct.
    As I tell friends all the time, it does not matter the way it is suppose to be, it matters the way it is!

    I hope this debate continues for everyones sakes. To all participants here, each of you have provided us valuable information that has taught us all and allowed us to fine tune our own opinions. Maybe I will change my screen name to reflect my middle of road position: SelfDeHopy.
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  14. #43
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466

    More Discussion

    More Discussions of Constitution picked up by my web crawler. Go HERE for credits.

    It has been famously said and often repeated that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. While this statement is generally true, it is incomplete. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, the Constitution ultimately means what the People believe it to mean.

    So far in our history the Supreme Court has refrained from any interpretation of the Constitution that was so flagrantly at odds with the beliefs of the People that a serious, violent uprising ensued. But they may have come perilously close in last year’s decision in DC v. Heller. In that case the Court unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to arms, but disagreed in a 5 – 4 split as to whether the District of Columbia’s virtual ban on handguns violated that individual right. Even in the prevailing opinion, the justices expressed positions which are completely at odds with the understanding of those of us in the Second Amendment community.

    The Second Amendment exists to ensure that the government does not trample the rights of the People under color of law. There are some 90 million gunowners in the U.S. and at least one third of those maintain a relatively purist understanding of the Second Amendment; meaning that at least 30 million citizens would strenuously object to any interpretation of the Second Amendment supporting the banning of any type of commonly held firearm or the mandatory registration of firearms or licensing of firearm owners. That’s 30 million people – with guns – rejecting unconstitutional laws, regardless of what the Supreme Court might approve.

    That is not to say that 30 million gunowners would rise up in armed revolt at the passage of an “assault weapon” ban or a registration scheme; we would not. A fair number of us would however roundly refuse to comply with such laws and thus, officially become criminals. If even a third of those Second Amendment fundamentalists refused do comply with an unconstitutional ban, the results would be disastrous. Any attempt to apprehend and punish any of those 30 million, otherwise law-abiding citizens, for the crime of disobeying an unconstitutional law would undoubtedly escalate tensions and could lead to some very serious consequences.

    This is not Great Britain or Australia; American gunowners are not just hunters, collectors, and hobbyists; we are patriots and see our firearms as part of our patriotic duty. We are the heirs of liberty and we see it as a sacred obligation to protect and defend the rights ensconced in the Constitution. We see our firearms, along with our convictions, as the final guarantors of liberty and protections for the Constitution.

    It matters not one whit what hoplophobic politicians and radical anti-rights activists – or even the majority on the Supreme Court – might think is reasonable and acceptable; there are at least 30 million of us who Know what the Second Amendment means and we are not going to be swayed by hollow arguments about “public safety,” “terrorist threats,” or “the greater good.” We Know that we are the good guys and that we are right. We Know that we are no threat to anyone except, criminals, tyrants, and jack-booted thugs. We Know that attacking our Constitutional Rights – whether by regulation, legislation, or court order – is attacking our nation and our way of life and we will not simply roll over and surrender the Constitution.

    The American people need to understand that what the hoplophobes and gun prohibitionists are suggesting with their gun bans and licensing schemes is that the government declare me and millions of other patriotic, law-abiding citizens to be criminals. They are advocating that if I do not comply with their unconstitutional orders I should be hunted down, and either incarcerated or killed! Killed because I believe the Constitution means what it says and I choose to safely own firearms which scare them.

    Perhaps part of gun grabbers’ plan is to push gun control far enough to drive the most extreme of our number to push back with violence and thus justify the need to disarm the rest of us. So the most dedicated of the Second Amendment purists might actually play into the strategies of any of our opponents, but I honestly wouldn’t put it past some of them. That’s why it is so critical that we go on the political offense and remain steadfastly on the civil defense. If the enemies of the Second Amendment can provokd a violent action they can convince a broad majority of Americans that gunowners are a greater threat than unchecked government power; at that point there would be little possibility for peaceful resolution
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,163

    Concealed quoted some material, and my comment

    Quote Originally Posted by concealed View Post
    More Discussions of Constitution picked up by my web crawler. Go HERE for credits.

    That’s 30 million people – with guns – rejecting unconstitutional laws, regardless of what the Supreme Court might approve.

    That is not to say that 30 million gunowners would rise up in armed revolt at the passage of an “assault weapon” ban or a registration scheme; we would not. A fair number of us would however roundly refuse to comply with such laws and thus, officially become criminals.
    Nah. Most folks (myself included) would roll over, turn in their weapons, and claim that it is their legal obligation and an act of patriotism to obey the law.

    The argument that massive numbers of us would willfully violate the law does not put us in a very good light. It paints us as potential law breakers willing to violate "possession" laws with the same alacrity that the drug user violates possession laws. That's not good company to be in. Moreover, such postings really distort the law abiding nature of our community and the DC rule to not advocate law breaking--though in this case it is advocating breaking a hypothetical future law.

    There would no doubt be a much smaller number of people, in the tens of thousands, who would make a brisk business in the resultant black market, precisely as there are always a few hundred thousand making a market in the illegal drug trade, the prostitution business, human traffic, and the illegal sales of the genitals of endangered species for herbal medicines.

  16. #45
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    This was an article by another author, not to be taken literally but to be used in the discussion of the constitution. I would hope people would see that this was not a mass appeal for breaking the law.
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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. Constitution
    By Pro2A in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 29th, 2010, 07:45 PM
  2. The Constitution for a New Generation
    By ErnieNWillis in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 4th, 2009, 11:17 PM
  3. The Constitution - Just As Relevant As Ever
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 19th, 2007, 05:35 PM
  4. What does your state Constitution say?
    By LibertyGal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: July 16th, 2006, 08:20 PM

Search tags for this page

ratifications used to change the equal rights admendment to the constitution

Click on a term to search for related topics.