Recent content by jackers

You said Madison's words only covered the 1st Amendment, yet trial by jury is covered by the 6th and 7th. This is Madison's words... Clearly Madison was trying to add protection to the States but the States rejected that. They didn't want the federal government meddling in their individual...

Duplicate post, please delete.

Coxe is arguing before the BOR was introduced. I agree with him, by the way, that no State should disarm their constituents. That being said, that quote does not show how the BOR's pertained to the States. He is simply arguing that no government should have that power. Of course, most states...

So you are saying only the 1st Amendment is a protection from the Federal Government, and I have provided quotes from Jefferson himself saying that the states can infringe upon free speech and protests, why can't Newtown, CT, make a law banning the idiots of Westboro Baptist Church from...

Trial by jury falls under the 1st Amendment now? When did that happen?

Ok, I've shown quotes, examples of congressional debate, unanimous supreme court rulings, direct quotes, etc. your turn. Find a single quote from a founder that talks about the Bill of Rights pertaining to the states. Just one.

In 1789, Rep. James Madison told the First Congress that a constitutional amendment was needed to guarantee that "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases," but that amendment was defeated in the Senate and never...

From the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. Why would they propose amendments to limit themselves?

So you are telling me those two (Woods, Gutzman) highly accredited, close personal friends of Ron Paul, never read the anti-federalist papers, the federalist papers, the constitution (as some here seem to believe), or researched historical congressional hearings?

From the Gutzman article...

Sorry to dig this up from the grave, but I find it extremely important considering our current climate. This seems to be a hot button topic with us, but the truth is the truth. I'd actually prefer it, as originally understood. We might lose states like Il, NY, and Ct, but we'd have less...

This is the part I don't understand. If you are going by the strict, original Constitution, then the Bill of Rights would only limit federal laws. So a federal ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, but heller v DC, and McDonald v Chicago would have been upheld. Since the BOR didn't bind...

I don't understand this. If you look at the Constitution, as originally written and before the Incorporation Doctrine, then we wouldn't have these "One-Size-Fits-All" federal laws. Sure, places like NJ would be free to restrict gun ownership (as long as they follow their State constitution) but...

Duplicate post...

Haha, entertaining so far!