Thomas Woods & Kevin Gutzman question

[Acala]

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 restrictions elsewhere. Fifty laboratories for experimentation.

When the Supreme Court rules these Federal gun grabs constitutional, who will you petition against? Some unelected federal judges. Good luck with that...

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcrip...-and-2nd-amendment-is-for-progressive-losers/

You nullify and if that doesn't work you secede.

 

[jackers]

From the Gutzman article...

The 14th Amendment, according to federal courts, beginning in the second decade of the 20th century, made various provisions of the Bill of Rights enforceable by federal courts against state governments. This is nonsense. Nobody believed it in the 19th century. We can find that that’s true by looking at the fact that soon after the 14th Amendment was adopted, they had debates in Congress over the question whether there should be a constitutional amendment to make the principle of separation of church and state enforceable against the federal government. That is, after the 14th Amendment was adopted, Congress adopted lots of time to considering the question: Should they amend the Constitution to make the principle of separation of church and state enforceable against the federal government.

The reason that’s significant is, if the 14th Amendment had been intended to make the Bill of Rights first a provision that is enforceable against the federal government, there wouldn’t have needed to be another amendment to make the establishment clause enforceable against the federal government. It already would have been but it wasn’t. Nobody said we already have incorporation, and the reason they didn’t say that is because they didn’t. This idea of incorporating the Bill of Rights, or parts of it anyway, into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was cooked up in the second decade of the 20th century. It has nothing to do with what the people ratified in the 19th century. What we end up with here is a bogus application of some idea of a right to gun ownership made up by federal judges, by federal judges, against local and state governments. Of course, what that means is you can’t control what the rules are going to be because we don’t get to vote on who the federal judges are. We don’t ever get to have any say in deciding what the policies are going to be.

 

[Pericles]

From the Gutzman article...

If any of those guys had read the anti-federalist papers, they would have realized that the main objection to the Constitution was the supremacy clause in Article VI, because it made everything in the federal Constitution superior to the state constitutions.

That is the reason why the remedy to the objection was to include the BoR, because then the BoR would be part of the supreme law of the land. The SCOTUS went off track in 1833, declaring the BoR only applied to the fed gov, forgetting the language that all amendments to the Constitution were of the same import as the original text.

If the SCOTUS had got it right in 1833, the 14A would have been totally redundant and unneeded.

 

[jackers]

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?

 

[jackers]

From the Preamble of the Bill of Rights.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [Federal Government] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Why would they propose amendments to limit themselves?

 

[Pericles]

From the Preamble of the Bill of Rights.


Why would they propose amendments to limit themselves?

The men who wrote the Constitution and implemented it, did not trust the the federal government. Why should I?

Do you want to discuss what the Constitution says, what the SCOTUS says it says, or what someone else says it says?

 

[pcgame]

............

 

[Henry Rogue]

Here's a nice little book> http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-Primer-Constitutional/dp/B0006QSTH4 The Second Amendment Primer. http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24370556M/The_second_amendment_primer open library

 

[jackers]

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 became part of the Constitution.

In 1804, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Abigail Adams, "While we deny that Congress have a right to controul the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the rights of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so."

 

[Pericles]

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 became part of the Constitution.

In 1804, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Abigail Adams, "While we deny that Congress have a right to controul the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the rights of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so."

That's it? Because the 1A is a restriction on the federal government only, the rest of the Amendments are as well?

 

[jackers]

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.

 

[jackers]

That's it? Because the 1A is a restriction on the federal government only, the rest of the Amendments are as well?

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

 

[jackers]

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 protesting the children's funeral?

 

[Pericles]

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.

William Rawle - Washington's choice for Attorney General (Rawle declined)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

Source - A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 125-26, 1829 (2nd ed.) reprinted in THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION Volume Five (Amendments I-XII) p. 214 (Univ. of Chicago Press).

Tenche Coxe - US Representative (PA) 1st Congress

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Source - Pennsylvania Gazette

Both clearly state that the state governments can not disarm the people, and Rawle specifically states that the 2A applies to the states.

 

[Pericles]

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

You are the guy arguing the BOR only applied to the federal government until the 14A was put in and incorporated.

 

[jackers]

William Rawle - Washington's choice for Attorney General (Rawle declined)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

Source - A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 125-26, 1829 (2nd ed.) reprinted in THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION Volume Five (Amendments I-XII) p. 214 (Univ. of Chicago Press).

Tenche Coxe - US Representative (PA) 1st Congress

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Source - Pennsylvania Gazette

Both clearly state that the state governments can not disarm the people, and Rawle specifically states that the 2A applies to the states.

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 also have similar protections in their own State Constitutions.

 

[jackers]

Duplicate post, please delete.

 

[jackers]

You are the guy arguing the BOR only applied to the federal government until the 14A was put in and incorporated.

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...

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 became part of the Constitution.

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 state governments. Just like how the states wouldn't have voted for a BOR's that would be imposed upon them.

 

[Pericles]

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 state governments. Just like how the states wouldn't have voted for a BOR's that would be imposed upon them.

But the jury provision did pass in another amendment, along with being tried twice for the same crime, and other provisions that one probably would not want to argue did not apply tot he states, as the states tried almost all criminal cases.

 

[Pericles]

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 state governments. Just like how the states wouldn't have voted for a BOR's that would be imposed upon them.

Which is why state courts used the US Constitution to over turn state laws that conflicted with the B0R such as

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/1ga243.html

At May Term, 1846, of said Superior Court, the said bill of indictment came on to be tried before Judge Warren; when the plaintiff in error having been arraigned, and plead not guilty by his counsel, moved to quash the indictment on the following grounds:
1st. That the before-recited statute of the State of Georgia, assented to on the 25th of December, 1837, under which said indictment was found, is contrary to, and in violation of, the Constitution of the United States of America.


It is always with unfeigned reluctance that we approach a question involving the constitutionality of a state law. It is made our duty, however, (p.246)in the present case, and we should be unworthy of the exalted station we occupy, if we were to shrink from its performance.
There are certain fundamental principles appertaining to questions of this character, which should never be overlooked. I will state a few of them, and then proceed to examine the statutes in controversy.
It ought seldom or ever to be decided, in a doubtful case, that a law is void for repugnance to the Constitution. And it is not on slight implications and vague conjectures that the Legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers. On the contrary, the opposition between the law and the Constitution should be such, that the judges feel a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other. The presumption is in favor of every legislative act, and the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality. These doctrines have been repeatedly advanced by the highest judicatory in the nation.--See 6 Cranch, 128; 4 Wheaton, 625; 12 Ib. 436.

And the Constitution of the United States, in declaring that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed, only reiterated a truth announced a century before, in the act of 1689, "to extend and secure the rights and liberties of English subjects"--whether living 3,000 or 300 miles from the royal palace.


I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States. The court held otherwise, however, in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (18 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says: "The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision: 'Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals, whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that that Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence."
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States, in their act of ratification, recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.
Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them (p.251)as beacon-lights to guide and control the action of their own legislatures, as well as that of Congress. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, is it competent for the General Assembly to take away this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defence? In solemnly affirming that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and that, in order to train properly that militia, the unlimited right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired, are not the sovereign people of the State committed by this pledge to preserve this right inviolate? Would they not be recreant to themselves, to free government, and false to their own vow, thus voluntarily taken, to suffer this right to be questioned? If they hesitate or falter, is it not to concede (themselves being judges) that the safety of the States is a matter of indifference?