Herman Cain says Gun rights are a state issue. #fail

[GunnyFreedom]

My beliefs on the Constitution aren't new or utopian. They were commonly held in the 19th Century by men such as John Taylor of Caroline.

I respect that there have been many different interpretations of the Constitution, but to me the text is as clear as a primer. I've never had to look elsewhere for understanding, but I have read the Federalist and Antifederalist papers and have never encountered a conflict in them with my extant understanding.

 

[Agorism]

Herman Cain probably doesn't even know what incorporation is. Jack Hunter is dumb if he thinks that.

The Bill of Rights applies just as much to States as it does the Federal Government.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Herman Cain probably doesn't even know what incorporation is. Jack Hunter is dumb if he thinks that.

The Bill of Rights applies just as much to States as it does the Federal Government.

Egh. I hate the 14th Amendment. It muddles some of the most beautiful logic I've ever encountered. What needs to be 'incorporated' was already incorporated by Article 6. What didn't need incorporating, wasn't. The only thing I disagree on was I'd like to have seen the 1st Amendment applied broadly, but several of the States already had state churches at the time and it would never have ratified.

 

[BuddyRey]

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it was meant to be across the board enforced at the federal level, because the 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It certainly seems to me that the 2nd amendment was meant to delegate such a power of protecting firearms ownership to the federal government, or else it wouldn't even be mentioned in the national Constitution. Am I missing anything?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it was meant to be across the board enforced at the federal level, because the 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It certainly seems to me that the 2nd amendment was meant to delegate such a power of protecting firearms ownership to the federal government, or else it wouldn't even be mentioned in the national Constitution. Am I missing anything?

You read it how I read it, and I try to take the "plain language" approach.

 

[leonster]

Yeah, I can see how people argue the 1st Amendment only applies to the federal government, because of the specific language used: "Congress shall make no law"

The 2nd, though, is pretty damn clear: "Shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "The federal government shall not infringe" or "Congress shall not infringe." It says shall not be infringed, by anyone.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Seriously, if the Federal Constitution allowed the States to prohibit the possession of arms, then there would not be any sort of militia. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." this demonstrates a positive responsibility on the part of the Federal Government to prevent the States from infringing on the right to bear arms.

 

[Southron]

Yeah, I can see how people argue the 1st Amendment only applies to the federal government, because of the specific language used: "Congress shall make no law"

The 2nd, though, is pretty damn clear: "Shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "The federal government shall not infringe" or "Congress shall not infringe." It says shall not be infringed, by anyone.

The BoR did not start applying to states until 1890. We went well over 100 years without it being forced on the states. I guess it wasn't as clear as you think. If not for the War of Northern Aggression I doubt it would apply today.

 

[ZanZibar]

Prior to the 14th Amendment he would have been right since at that time the Constitution only pertained to the Federal Government, however the 14th incorporated the States under the Bill of Rights; this was the intent of the Amendment after-all.
.

Tom Woods disagrees with you. Search for his lecture on the 14th Amendment, Raul Berger has done some great work on it too.

I still believe states don't have the right to remove possession of firearms and never will.

According to the Constitution, they do, but according to the natural law they don't. Besides, many state constitutions have more RTKBA protections than does the federal Constitution.

Why is he wrong? Before the 14th amendment, it was a States rights issue.
.

1- States don't have rights, only individuals do. States have powers.
2- the 14th amendment was never legally ratified.

 

[ZanZibar]

The Bill of Rights was not put in place to define the rights of the individual.

It should really be called the Bill of Limitations.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

yeah well..Jack Hunter also thinks its a state issue. I don't agree with herman cain and I dont agree with jack hunter.

it is IDIOTIC to think that an unalienable right is a "state issue". What part of infringe do people not understand? Oh yeah and Im tired of people who say "the bill of rights dont apply to the states ". If thats the case then there is no purpose to binding the federal government at all.

I appreciate your commendation of individual liberty, but it is antithetical to allow the federal government to regulate state laws so that they can control something which they had no authority to control in the first place. The idea that the federal government can intervene with state laws in order to "protect" the bill of rights is what brought us the whole mess of trying to define "religion" as it applies to establishment cases in the public school system. All of a sudden, we have Supreme Court cases trying to define when you have a right to free speech, and everything becomes uniform across the nation instead of being solved at a local level. Things like "Sherbert v. Verner come to mind as cases in which the fed intervened in order to define individual liberty and all of a sudden got involved in trying to define things on a federal level, which ultimately takes power away from the individual. I happen to believe the 14th amendment does not give the federal government such authority, but it is good to know your rights when it affects you. If you study court cases and the constitution in any length, you'll see that "Congress" becoming defined as all levels of government is what pretty much screwed up our system and gave the feds power to manipulate our personal lives. If you care about liberty, you should be opposed to the bill of rights being protected by the federal government. It is a limitation AGAINST the federal government for a reason. Ultimately, the way the Constitution is set up, it is so that the federal government should have little effect on your personal life. It is much easier to control state power at a state or local level, and ultimately, the state constitutions are all that should really matter to you in the place where you live.

If the bill of rights is what allows the federal government to decide what your rights are, then it is best to not have a bill of rights. We should have a bill of limitations, not something that gives the federal government a say in what you do at school and what constitutes speech. Read and know your state constitution, and that will ultimately be what you should look out for. Of course, now, state Constitutions are almost irrelevant, but minus the federal monopoly on individual liberty issues, it should really be all that's relevant to your life in the most immediate sense.

 

[AFPVet]

I appreciate your commendation of individual liberty, but it is antithetical to allow the federal government to regulate state laws so that they can control something which they had no authority to control in the first place. The idea that the federal government can intervene with state laws in order to "protect" the bill of rights is what brought us the whole mess of trying to define "religion" as it applies to establishment cases in the public school system. All of a sudden, we have Supreme Court cases trying to define when you have a right to free speech, and everything becomes uniform across the nation instead of being solved at a local level. Things like "Sherbert v. Verner come to mind as cases in which the fed intervened in order to define individual liberty and all of a sudden got involved in trying to define things on a federal level, which ultimately takes power away from the individual. I happen to believe the 14th amendment does not give the federal government such authority, but it is good to know your rights when it affects you. If you study court cases and the constitution in any length, you'll see that "Congress" becoming defined as all levels of government is what pretty much screwed up our system and gave the feds power to manipulate our personal lives. If you care about liberty, you should be opposed to the bill of rights being protected by the federal government. It is a limitation AGAINST the federal government for a reason. Ultimately, the way the Constitution is set up, it is so that the federal government should have little effect on your personal life. It is much easier to control state power at a state or local level, and ultimately, the state constitutions are all that should really matter to you in the place where you live.

If the bill of rights is what allows the federal government to decide what your rights are, then it is best to not have a bill of rights. We should have a bill of limitations, not something that gives the federal government a say in what you do at school and what constitutes speech. Read and know your state constitution, and that will ultimately be what you should look out for. Of course, now, state Constitutions are almost irrelevant, but minus the federal monopoly on individual liberty issues, it should really be all that's relevant to your life in the most immediate sense.

The reason why the 14th was created was to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. The Constitution is a contract between the states which allows them to work together. For this reason, you cannot have a state which is communist, another which may have slaves, be fascist.... There is a limit to the states... and those limitations are enumerated in the Constitution. If it weren't for the 14th, the southern states could still be violating civil rights....

In short, no... the Second Amendment is not a "state issue"... it is a right which is respected by the Constitution. Wearing a firearm is also a matter of life, liberty, and property.

 

[NeoconTea]

States should not be allowed to hold unconstitutional laws. That's what the Bill of Rights is for.

 

[AFPVet]

States should not be allowed to hold unconstitutional laws. That's what the Bill of Rights is for.

Exactly!

 

[jmdrake]

Prior to the 14th Amendment he would have been right since at that time the Constitution only pertained to the Federal Government, however the 14th incorporated the States under the Bill of Rights; this was the intent of the Amendment after-all.

Wow -- SA couldn't be more wrong. I guess he has never read the intent and wording of the principle author of the 14th nor the proceeding hearings upon it. The fact is you will have to have an amendment making the 14th null & void just like we did with alcohol prohibition. I also can't believe he strawmanned gay-marriage and healthcare wherein they are never mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Actually there's a strong argument to be made that the 2nd amendment always applied to the states.

1) Compare the wording of the 1st (which only applies to congress) and the 2nd (which says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".) The 2nd amendment is wide open as to who's protected and what entities cannot infringe.

2) Consider the "republican form of government" clause. That clause is before the bill of rights.In Liberty Defined, Ron Paul suggests that the RFOG clause means the federal government can ban infanticide at the state level.

Here's a quote from Liberty Defined page 2:

If a state legalized infanticide it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government which is required by the Constitution.

I wonder if all of the "states can do whatever the hell they want" crowd have read Ron Paul's book?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Actually there's a strong argument to be made that the 2nd amendment always applied to the states.

1) Compare the wording of the 1st (which only applies to congress) and the 2nd (which says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".) The 2nd amendment is wide open as to who's protected and what entities cannot infringe.

2) Consider the "republican form of government" clause. That clause is before the bill of rights.In Liberty Defined, Ron Paul suggests that the RFOG clause means the federal government can ban infanticide at the state level.

Here's a quote from Liberty Defined page 2:



I wonder if all of the "states can do whatever the hell they want" crowd have read Ron Paul's book?

When pressed on that issue during DeMint's debate thing, Paul went the opposite direction of the quote. He also said as much during an interview with a Christian group on the topic of abortion. Perhaps he was presenting an academic argument with that quote, as opposed to his personal beliefs?

More of a thought than a criticism of anyone here:

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to states, and speech, privacy, right to a trial etc can be violated, what's the point of forming a union?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Which debate was it in that Paul commented on Bachmann's stance on this, saying something like she was turning the Constitution on its head? It had to do with states' rights.

 

[ZanZibar]

States should not be allowed to hold unconstitutional laws. That's what the Bill of Rights is for.

Not until the Incorporation Doctrine came about.

 

[ZanZibar]

Actually there's a strong argument to be made that the 2nd amendment always applied to the states.

1) Compare the wording of the 1st (which only applies to congress) and the 2nd (which says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".) The 2nd amendment is wide open as to who's protected and what entities cannot infringe.

2) Consider the "republican form of government" clause. That clause is before the bill of rights.In Liberty Defined, Ron Paul suggests that the RFOG clause means the federal government can ban infanticide at the state level.

Which again goes to prove that it's definitely not a perfect document.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The reason why the 14th was created was to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. The Constitution is a contract between the states which allows them to work together. For this reason, you cannot have a state which is communist, another which may have slaves, be fascist.... There is a limit to the states... and those limitations are enumerated in the Constitution. If it weren't for the 14th, the southern states could still be violating civil rights....

In short, no... the Second Amendment is not a "state issue"... it is a right which is respected by the Constitution. Wearing a firearm is also a matter of life, liberty, and property.

I know. I don't believe that, however, and neither does Ron Paul. EVERYTHING that wasn't specifically given to the federal government was reserved for the states. Individual rights issues cannot come from a federal level, or else our governmental system doesn't work. Also, don't give me that crap about the southern states having slaves. That's so far from reality it's not funny. If one state violates natural human rights, they would lose business and be more visible and easier to prevent from gaining more power. The thing I am amazed at is that you think the federal government is any more capable of effective government than states. So what if a state had unfair laws? Move. You can't do that if you have the federal government dictating everything in your personal life. There's no escaping from that.