Constitution Discussion...Living or Not? - Page 4

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 concealed This was an article by another author, not to be taken literally but to be used in the discussion of the ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59

Thread: Constitution Discussion...Living or Not?

  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    Not taken that way

    Quote Originally Posted by concealed View Post
    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.
    I didn't take it that way, but I disagree with the article's premise that there would be massive disobedience to the law; especially not from the present DC crowd which is by nature extremely law abiding.

    The author of the article argued that Uncle couldn't get away with banning guns because the inevitable result would be massive law breaking. Well, we tried that experiment once in the form of prohibition. There was massive law breaking. Would the same happen with guns? I doubt it. Times have changed. LE has much more effective tools for catching the bad guys then they did during prohibition. And, prohibition was considered a joke by the general public. Gun bans would be considered serious and not at all funny by the general public.


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,392
    Living or not, in the sense of whether it is treated as needing change to accommodate modern times?

    I'm of the opinion it was a statement of moral principles and guidelines for the rule of law, intended to remain a solid, "dead" beacon for future generations to use as a signal as to whether they were getting off course. Not perfect, but in most ways a far better solution than the abuse, manipulation, misinterpretation or outright ignoring of the principles.

    In the sense of whether it should be treated as malleable, changeable, based on modern whim? Absolutely not. Viewed another way: which core moral principle would you think is worth discarding, twisting, abusing?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  3. #48
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    You see, I think you know what would happen, but since you won't say it I'll spell it out for you.

    If the United States were to repeal any amendment to the US Constitution that is also addressed or covered in my Florida State Constitution, what would happen?

    Nothing. Not a thing at all. My rights to speak freely, to peaceably assemble, to worship as I choose, to keep and bear arms, etc., are still protected.

    absolutely guarantee you that if a citizen is charged by the federal government for behaviors protected by the citizen's state constitution, the vast majority of states will defend their citizen or citizens.

    States align themselves with national law when they want to, and only when they want to. I know what it's like to live in a state with a more fluid constitution. I also know that every constitutional amendment is voted on and approved/disapproved by my state's voters, not by the State of Florida. "States" aren't aligning themselves with the federal government. Voters are. If a state is altering its constitution to align more closely to current federal law, that is a function of the state's voters choosing so. None of this is rosy-eyed idealism or "what I want it to be as opposed to how it is". This is exactly how it works.

    Have you noticed that the number of states that adopted the '94 AWB-like laws can be counted on one hand? You mention the OK legal incident without acknowledging whether or not it is even the state's purview to decide if the right to bear arms holds precedent over the employer's privacy rights. The feds should have never played a part in that. Witness the way it went down in Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota.


    ccw9mm, I am in complete agreement with your response.


    -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.

  4. #49
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    HuH???

    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    You mention the OK legal incident without acknowledging whether or not it is even the state's purview to decide if the right to bear arms holds precedent over the employer's privacy rights. Th

    ccw9mm, I am in complete agreement with your response.

    -B
    No, that is quite irrelevant because the issue had nothing to do with employer's privacy rights; perhaps employer's property rights, but the bottom line is the state passed a law in support of its own constitutional rkb and the Feds stepped on it.

    That is not necessarily either a good or a bad thing, but it speaks to your question. And you already know that the "abolutely nothing" would happen response can not be correct. You don't give Uncle enough credit for its capability of imposing its will. (Gahds, I could be making your or SDs case on State Rights if I carried this argument along further.)

    I think you posted an interesting hypothetical but as with any hypothetical, we won't know what might happen until it happens. The pitcher might hit a grand slam home run in the bottom of the 9th.

  5. #50
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    You see, I think you know what would happen, but since you won't say it I'll spell it out for you.

    If the United States were to repeal any amendment to the US Constitution that is also addressed or covered in my Florida State Constitution, what would happen?

    Nothing. Not a thing at all. My rights to speak freely, to peaceably assemble, to worship as I choose, to keep and bear arms, etc., are still protected.
    I, too, am disappointed that Hopyard chose not to answer question. BAC is exactly correct. Nothing would happen. Further, the Bill of Rights is completely unnecessary because the Federal government does not have the power to infringe on the rights enumerated or others. That fact was lost to the anti-Federalists, who were frightened about a new government.

    The entire Bill of Rights could be repealed and it wouldn't change a thing.

    Interestingly, the Supremacy clause in the Constitution mandates that Federal law trumps conflicting state law. So, if an AWB is enacted at the Federal level then a state could not allow automatic weapons.


    If a state is altering its constitution to align more closely to current federal law, that is a function of the state's voters choosing so. None of this is rosy-eyed idealism or "what I want it to be as opposed to how it is". This is exactly how it works.
    This is correct. However, if the state constitution is in direct conflict with a Federal law then the people should change their constituton since the Federal law takes precedence. I recently read that the Court opined that 'medical' marijuana in California must be returned to the owner because the Federal marijuana laws were designed against drug abuse so there was no conflict with the state law.

    For those curious, this does nothing to establish that the Second Amendment applies to the states, which it is does not. The Second Amendment is a prohibition on the Federal government from making a particular law.

  6. #51
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Ack, I apologize about that, Hopyard. I'd meant property rights, not privacy rights.

    Hopyard, have you ever heard of a state being pressured into changing its constitution to match federal law?


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Interestingly, the Supremacy clause in the Constitution mandates that Federal law trumps conflicting state law. So, if an AWB is enacted at the Federal level then a state could not allow automatic weapons.
    Which begs an interesting question. Per the cited Article 4, only those laws pursuant with the US Constitution are those that would have "supremacy" over conflicting state laws. The argument could, and should, be made that states with laws contrary to any new and similarly-crafted "AWB" legislation would not be rendered inferior because the US Constitution does not grant the power to Congress to create arbitrary ultimatums on capacity and features of a manufactured product (that I could see, at any rate).


    -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.

  7. #52
    Member Array trapper T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hyrum Utah
    Posts
    96
    The Federal does not have to do much in order to make States live by their law. For instance the Nation 55 mph law. Wyoming said no way. The Feds cut off their Highway Funding and Wyoming soon collapsed and gave in. This day and age where a great amount of State Funds actually come from the Fed, it is very easy to make States comply. Is this right?, no, but it is reality. Utah bucked the Clinton Adm. and we lost. The Fed owns vast amounts of the Western States Land. Bill Clinton took away a vary large part of our state and turned it in to a Monument. This made all mining, ect. leases null and void on this property. Doing this eliminated funding for our schools making us rely more on the Fed for funding. Taking away funding will make most States do as the Feds want.

  8. #53
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by trapper T View Post
    Taking away funding will make most States do as the Feds want.
    It is almost like the US dependency on foreign oil. Until we become self sufficient, we are at the whims of the foreign suppliers.

    The states are to the Federeal Government, like the US is to OPEC. The states need to become self sufficient so that they can tell Obama to pack sand when he trounces our rights, if he ever does.
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  9. #54
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by concealed View Post
    It is almost like the US dependency on foreign oil. Until we become self sufficient, we are at the whims of the foreign suppliers.

    The states are to the Federeal Government, like the US is to OPEC. The states need to become self sufficient so that they can tell Obama to pack sand when he trounces our rights, if he ever does.
    +1

    I don't think he will because he is a weak figurehead.

    I think the expression is 'pound sand.'

  10. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    Don't know, maybe during reconstruction

    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Ack, I apologize about that, Hopyard. I'd meant property rights, not privacy rights.

    Hopyard, have you ever heard of a state being pressured into changing its constitution to match federal law?

    -B
    I don't know, but maybe during reconstruction.

    In any case the idea that a single state or small group of states could defy (or would want to defy) the national government (and that such might be desirable) is horrendous. Been there, done that, cost a few hundred thousand lives. It will be worse next time, and no one wants a next time.

  11. #56
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    In any case the idea that a single state or small group of states could defy (or would want to defy) the national government (and that such might be desirable) is horrendous.
    We don't have a national government. We have a Federal government. The difference is all important.

  12. #57
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Hopyard,

    Why do we even have states? Sounds like you espouse the idea of one federal government?
    Men look out for themselves; real men look out for others!

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087

    I did answer BAC's question

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I, too, am disappointed that Hopyard chose not to answer question. BAC is exactly correct. Nothing would happen..
    I did answer BAC's question, but you guys aren't listening or paying attention to what I wrote.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter, because these are hypotheticals and no one knows what might happen until it happens.

    You guys want to say absolutely nothing will happen. Good. You are entitled to that view. I think you are excessively optimistic. I think the state legislatures would fall all over themselves bringing their own state laws and constitutions into conformity with whatever transpired at the national level. And even if they did not, and tried to resist, they would be crushed by losing highway money, education money, Medicaid money, environmental clean up money; by investigation after investigation and indictment after indictment.

    Just to make up an absurd example that would illustrate the point, a state could change its constitution to require citizens to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes. (In Texas the constitution does get that detailed.) Do you guys seriously think Uncle would do nothing about that. Or turn it around. Texas could possibly legalize weed through a constitutional amendment voted by the populace. Do you think that would stand against Uncle's laws especially if there were a US Constitutional amendment banning the use of weed as we had for alcohol in the past? You guys know the answer. You just don't want to admit it.

  14. #59
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I did answer BAC's question, but you guys aren't listening or paying attention to what I wrote.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter, because these are hypotheticals and no one knows what might happen until it happens.

    You guys want to say absolutely nothing will happen. Good. You are entitled to that view. I think you are excessively optimistic. I think the state legislatures would fall all over themselves bringing their own state laws and constitutions into conformity with whatever transpired at the national level. And even if they did not, and tried to resist, they would be crushed by losing highway money, education money, Medicaid money, environmental clean up money; by investigation after investigation and indictment after indictment.

    Just to make up an absurd example that would illustrate the point, a state could change its constitution to require citizens to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes. (In Texas the constitution does get that detailed.) Do you guys seriously think Uncle would do nothing about that. Or turn it around. Texas could possibly legalize weed through a constitutional amendment voted by the populace. Do you think that would stand against Uncle's laws especially if there were a US Constitutional amendment banning the use of weed as we had for alcohol in the past? You guys know the answer. You just don't want to admit it.
    From your response it seems you did not read my post concerning the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. It addresses the questions you posed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Sponsored 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, 08:45 PM
  2. The Constitution for a New Generation
    By ErnieNWillis in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 5th, 2009, 12:17 AM
  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, 06:35 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, 09:20 PM

Search tags for this page

ratifications used to change the equal rights admendment to the constitution

,

what are the principles and machanisms of constitution making?

Click on a term to search for related topics.