no they don’t.
the Supremacy clause means federal law trumps all.
and state constitutions matter not at all re Federal Law.
no they don’t.
the Supremacy clause means federal law trumps all.
and state constitutions matter not at all re Federal Law.
Incorrect. The 10th amendment gives power to the state. The state gives the federal goveenment power. Also, if you love centralized government power so much, move to Mexico. Its a socilaist dream. Or Venezuela.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied.Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law
In this case of the Second Amendment the Federal Government clearly can set reasonable terms under which ALL states must operate such as FBI Background Checks.
The Supreme Court has ruled on at least 10 such cases where Supremacy was upheld.
There is also the Implied Powers Doctrine which the Supreme Court has also ruled allows the Federal Government to take Implied Power over areas of the Constitution not specifically granted.
That’s the way it is.
maybe you should set aside the childish insults for a bit?
No guns = much more difficult to revolt if needed or defend against foreign invasion. Everything about the Democratic Party in America is meant to establish more government control and restrict freedom.
Their in lies the rub when we talk about the ability of the federal government to even consider a law… Again, if the federal government has infinite power in all areas much of the blather about enumerated powers is just so much misleading fluff…
not unlimited @Scott but as Chief Justice John Marshall ruled it does have certain “Implied Powers”.
further from the same article above.
"Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the Constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers."
If you are a Strict Constitutionalist you will probably have problems with this.
Those of us who believe the Constitution in order to remain relevant must be a Living Document can see the necessity for such elasticity as did Washington, Hamilton, et al.
Look, you know and I know that going from a bank( McCulloch v. Maryland) to conduct the governments business to the many excitable diversions primarily started with FDR and his stacked court theory take the use of the tool of ‘necessary and proper’ and turned it into an anything goes… generally, imagination is your limit, federal power. But then again, never let a precedent go to waste… its as good as a crisis.
I didn’t see this entry before I posted… You forgot a word…'to execute the 'enumerated’ powers
Absolutely it’s about disarming America.
I am mystified as to why the left thinks a new gun law would change the ability for the criminal element to gain access to guns. What’s even more curious is why they think they can be protected by the local police. They are just there to clean up the mess.
Best of luck to the leftist who think they can kill an amendment to the constitution.
No. You are forgetting about the 3rd Amendment. The Third Amendment (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner’s consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime. The judicial interpretation of this applies to tenancy as well.
You are also forgetting about the 4th Amendment which prevents against unreasonable search and serizure without a warrant.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with either of these and the military can not take action domestically. The 3rd Amendment also treats the National Guard as military so the likelihood of them being on the streets in this “storm trooper” scenario you illustrated is completely without basis.
The right of every citizen to bear arms is completely insane. I don’t believe The Founders had any clue as to how big a standing army we would some day have, nor the types of weapons that would be developed.
National defense was the primary reason they put it in the Second Amendment, not for immature nutcases that like to go around with weapons to make themselves feel like “real” men.
Consequently, I also believe that certain lines should be drawn and very strict laws instituted on who should be allowed to own any weapon of any kind.
Firstly, a militia was and is a private force, not at all a professional military. Secondly, a free state was the vision of the Founders, not the authoritarian state that you seek. There was no need for the Founders to frame it as they did if they just meant it for national defense. Since the beginning of Western civilization, going all the way back to Ancient Greece, there had been a recognition for national defense; the right to bear arms held a lot more meaning than simply being able to arm the individual against a mere criminal - it was meant to arm the individual against the state to prevent the consolidation of power and centralized government overreach…and in the worst case…against tyranny.
But I’ll let the Founders speak for themselves.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.
It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.”
The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many. Let it be the study, therefore, of lawgivers and philosophers, to enlighten the people’s understandings and improve their morals, by good and general education; to enable them to comprehend the scheme of government, and to know upon what points their liberties depend; to dissipate those vulgar prejudices and popular superstitions that oppose themselves to good government; and to teach them that obedience to the laws is as indispensable in them as in lords and kings.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Every generation needs a new revolution.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.
I think with the Romans, that the general of today should be a soldier tomorrow if necessary.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us.
These people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either can not or dare not defend ; their property is open to anyone who has the courage to attack them… The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.
I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or of waging war against tyrants.Where and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people?
You seem to not comprehend, that the Founders were against a large standing federal army and this Amendment was fashioned with that in mind. It put the burden on the states to establish militias.
The rest of what you quoted simply follows the line of reasoning that the United States of America would have militia’s in each state…and they needed to have a way to defend the union - thus, national defense.
So, what are you trying to say exactly? My point is that since that this responsibility falls to the state, and the states have ensured that they have armed militia for national defense, you have made zero points to counter my argument. The average Joe does not need access to weapons as per the 2nd Amendment.
I just told you a militia was not a professional military, and you were defending the idea that it was for national defense, ergo YOU defend the standing army idea. Hell, if the Founders didn’t want a semblance of a standing army, they wouldn’t have been so quick to ratify the Constitution in an illegal manner since the Articles of Confederation prevented them from creating a standing army (which hey, wouldn’t have happened if Alexander Hamilton and George Washington hadn’t conspired against the AoC and also wouldn’t have happened if Thomas Jefferson were out of the country when the Constitution was illegally ratified). If you’re actually against the idea of standing armies, you would agree with me.
As for the rest of what I said, that’s incredibly false. You didn’t even bother reading the rest of what I posted.
Finally, your understanding of the 2nd Amendment and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is entirely incorrect.
Oh come on, so you are now saying that the entire Constitution is unconstitutional? Why bother defending the 2nd Amendment then?
This answer has evolved over time, a well regulated militia is not a big standing army if one follows the revoluition it was the Minutemen, a state’s militia a kind of National Guard train two weekends a month type of thing. And Supreme Court rulings followed that thinking thru the early 1900’s noting it was illegal to carry a sawd off shotgun because that was not a weapon suitable for defense in a militia. (Miller case circa 1930 something)
Then the rulings began to change still supporting the illegality of a sawed off shot gun but now embracing more private ownership summed up best IMO by Justice Antonin Scalia below.
Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.
Let me help you out here battle buddy,
Here’s the language of Article XIII of the Articles:
The Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
Pretty clear. Every state agreed to it.
Then came the convention in Philadelphia as a direct result of Shay’s Rebellion and the thought that the federal government may not have enough power to stop insurrections that were occurring. There were also interstate trade wars happening at the time and merchants wanted the government to iron these issues out. The intent of the Philadelphia convention was to meet, draft Amendments, and take them back to Congress for review and action. The intent was not to draft an entirely new Constitution as the AoC was the law of the land. James Madison changed all of that as he wanted to replace the AoC with an entirely new document. Thus came Article VII to the AoC which stated:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
So, these guys just decided that they would draft a new governing document without the approval of the 13 states, and their respective legislatures, that ratified the AoC. Do you see the issue? It’s not so much that the Constitution was unconstitutional, it was that it was drafted and ratified in a manner that was not consistent with law at the time.
So, the key words here are “In the absence of any evidence”, and “we cannot say”. There was no trial in the lower court in which evidence and facts could be developed; and, there was no representation for Mr. Miller or Mr. Layton at the hearing in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the declaration: “In the absence of any evidence”. Also, notice that the Supreme Court declared that: “we cannot say”; and, they didn’t. They were declaring that “In the absence of any evidence” pro or con concerning a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’, “we cannot say” that it could be used by a military or not. They didn’t say it, and they remanded the case back to the trial court for a trial on the issues for evidence to be produced and facts to be developed.
The Supreme Court, long ago, wrote that the Right To Keep And Bear Arms doesn’t depend on Article Two of The Bill of Rights, but existed long before governments.
I hadn’t heard that. Where’d you see that?
From 56 Maryland L. Rev. 438-554 (1997):