I usually agree with Jack but on this point I think he's wrong. While the Constitution was originally intended to limit only the federal government, the 14th Amendment, duly ratified, prohibits the states from denying US citizens their individual rights as well. The right to arms is an inalienable right that the states should not be allowed to infringe upon either. It is codified under the 2nd Amendment, unlike health care or other issues that Jack fears will be unleashed by an intrusive federa
There are instances in the Bill of Rights where Congress is explicitly states, such as the first. Then there are instances where no one body is mentioned, such as the second. The obvious reading of this is that while the Federal Government CAN NOT limit speech, the states can and NO body can limit the right to keep and bear arms.
I like listening to Jack Hunter and all, but I disagree about the Bill of Rights not being individual rights. I dont see why they cant be both individual rights and restraints on the Federal government.. To argue that they could make health care a right on this premise would require an amendment..not likely to happen. There are individual rights within the BORs and at the same time limitations on federal power. To say otherwise would allow for the feds to seek control of the states .....
@hjhemin1 ....by buying off the state legislatures and govenors, thus taking the steps necessary to side step the bill of rights and impose despotism on the individuals, an all they would need is a willing legislature. MOney corrupts, The Bill of rights limits fed power, but also says that we have certain individual rights that no government can take away...federal or state. This is best exemplified in the 9th and 10th amendments, moreso the 9th, yet the 10th gives the people power too.
2:22 The most important right of all is the right of the individual against whatever unjust force, not the right of states to oppose the federal government. This is why I hate neoconfederates, deep inside they are authoritarian, anti-individualists who simply hate the federal government but love the tyranny of state and local governments.
@bsg1206 apparently Jack Hunter doesn't understand its purpose of recognizing unalienable individual rights. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are not "state rights". Jack is a total idiot.
@Mathew1985AZ I have read quite a bit since I wrote this comment and I think that Jack is right. Ultimately, the second amendment applies only to the federal government. As much as you or I wouldn't like it, Illinois, New York, and California are technically allowed to be as unfree as they choose according to the tenth amendment. That is okay though because that same amendment keeps us safe from the massive taxes and regulations those states seem to enjoy.
@bsg1206 I doubt that. And if you and Hunter are right, what the fuck would be the purpose of even being an american.if thats the truth, then FUCK even trying to live here.
@Mathew1985AZ The point is, and always has been, self government. It's a lot easier to move out of a state with laws that you don't like than to leave the nation entirely. This system only works when the feds stay limited to their constitutional powers, though.
You clearly have not studied the Second Amendment or the idea of how a militia could possibly be "necessary" to the security of a free state if it is not even ADEQUATE to such. With all due respect to those who participate in the "State Defense Forces" or "State Guards" ...they are little more than what the intelligence agencies refer to as "useful idiots".
Our first mistake was ever allowing Congress to neglect the responsibility to organize, arm and discipline the militia which is concurrent with the POWERS to do so granted to Congress by the Constitution.
@HodjaIII The vast majority of the states have their Militias. They are called State Defense Forces or State Guard. In all practicality pho-tay-to, poh-tah-to... And no one is stopping you from forming up and training your own group. Just have a good lawyer on retainer in some of the more liberal states, as the harassment from police/DHS could result in a win-fall. Official Oppression is a very serious charge, and so is a 1983 lawsuit. Both can only be cured with monetary restitution. :)
Congress should object to state laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms as posing violations and incursions into the jurisdiction properly given to Congress to provide for organizing, ARMING and disciplining the militia. If Congress really cared about preserving the militia AND protecting the right to keep and bear arms, it would oppose state laws like those in Heller and McDonald as violations of its jurisdiction and un-constitutional assumptions of jurisdiction by the states.
There is really a parallel here between the authority of Congress to organize, arm and discipline the militia and its power over immigration (think of Arizona).
The fact is that Congress generally IGNORES its RESPONSIBILITY in both cases and then cites the constitutional authority given to it by the Constitution over both powers as a kind of prerogative to ABUSE the power by NEGLECTING the subject to which it applies.
The Second Amendment was written in DIRECT response to objections raised against the Constitution - and specifically objections raised in response to the 16th clause of Article I, Section 8 which, among other powers, gave Congress authority to 'ARM' the militia. Several state ratifications requested that this power be returned TO THE STATES. The Second Amendment quite specifically IGNORED that request by specifically attributing a right of THE PEOPLE.
Sorry ...its been a LONG time since I looked at this thread.
In any case ...please show me where I have said ANYTHING that contradicts what you have said or where you have said anything that "corrects" anything that I have said.
@j1a2r34 is correct. Although the Constitution is designed to limit the power of the federal government, the phrase "nor prohibited by it to the states" clearly shows intent of the founders to keep the states from infringing upon the rights listed in the previous nine amendments.
so with this logic a state can do what ever the fuck they wanted....no right to free speech, no freedom of anything, hell they could even steel and murder in their own state. So the bill of rights does not apply to the states? Bullshit!
@k94845 That is correct. The federal government and the bill of rights have no legal authority over the states. We have 50 sovereign states within the union that come together on a federal level for a limited number of purposes. The federal government has no legal authority to carry out the vast majority of issues that it currently takes up. For example, Roe v. Wade is an issue best left to the states to decide on an individual basis. The Bill of Rights was only intended to limit the Feds. Later
@rtgoodson I didn't realize that. With rode vs wade I understand and agreed with the state by state. When anyone talks about their first, second, fourth amendment right with regards to police and legal issues they are wrong or only right if it's in the states constitution or involves the federal gov?
@k94845 Technically, the original version of the US constitution only granted the rights of the first, second, and fourth amendments to the people as it relates to the federal government. Following the passage of the 14th Amendment, judges have slowly forced the bill of rights onto the states via the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. All in all, the US Constitution only defines the role of the federal government.
If the Southern Avenger is correct, then the framers shouldn't have signed a Declaration of Independence that mentioned UNALIENABLE rights. If any of the bill of prohibitions (1st 10 amendments) were to be limited exclusively to a federal government prohibition, it would be the first which clearly delineates that the FEDERAL "congress shall pass no law" leaving an obvious opening for states to pass laws abridging speech, assembly, establishment of religion and to seek redress of grievances.
@j1a2r34 The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority, and I'm confused on why you even bother to mention it within this discussion. The Constitution was designed as a compact between the states for the creation of a common federal government with limited powers. These powers are specifically defined within the Constitution, and they're not designed to limit the state governments in any fashion. The states created the federal government; not the other way around.
@rtgoodson The first 9 amendments list prohibitions against government interference against RIGHTS retained by the people. Understanding that these rights are not subject to any alienation mechanism outside of them being extended to the point where others are harmed is, I believe an important consideration to understanding the framers intentions. The tenth redundantly reminds us that federal powers are few and enumerated and those not listed are retained by the states and the people.
@j1a2r34 Those prohibitions (The Bill of Rights) were only designed to limit the power of the federal government, and they're only applied to the states via the 14th. As I've stated before, the Constitution was only designed to shape, define, and limit the powers of the Federal Government while preserving the powers of the states and the people. Sadly, we've drifted away from that concept since The War Between the States and the start of the Progressive Movement in the US.
I accept the 10th amendment literally to mean exactly what it 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."
Article 1, Section 8 lists the delegated powers.
The last 4 words in the 10th amendment refers to prohibitions listed in the previous 9 amendments.
All other rights not mentioned are reserved to the states.
The point here is that the US constitution sets the rules under which the People,States and US federal government participate in the United States. Every State has its own Constitution that sets the rules under which the People and the State government participate in that state. The US Supreme Court is not competent to overrule State courts on issus that lie outside the purview of the US federal government. SA is right to say that Chicago can regulate gun access if Illinois constitution permits.
Bill of Right was INDEED guarantees of individual Rights. The Federal Gov't is limited by it yes, but the States are also bound by the agreement they ratified (aka the Constitution). It is also incorrect to say that the 10th is violated here. The Tenth is in fact in normal play here as the Sates are bound to abide by the Constitution as well, specifically in the Bill of Rights.
@Scraghunter No, your ignorance is amazing. The Bill of Rights was only intended to limit the power of the federal government against the people and their sovereign states. For example, several states maintained an official state religion long after our founding, as well as, limited free speech or press, et cetera. State law triumphs federal law on every thing not given to it under the constitution. The states created the federal government; not the other way around. Take care.
@Scraghunter sadly, your ignorance is amazing. The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution were only designed to limit and define the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights never applied to the states until the passage of the 14th Amendment following the War of Northern Aggression. Please go back and take a look at our history, and you'll be amazed at what you learn. take care.
Nope. I'm glad people are trying to examine the Constitution to see just exactly what it says, but this is a misinterpretation--at least I hope it's not intentionally meant to be misleading.
Read the 2nd Amendment. The wording is "...shall not be infringed." Very clear. The 10th Amendment tells us that there are things prohibited to the states. With this in mind, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to suggest that we should be mentally adding "except by the states" to the end of it.
@CleanUpCongress Sorry, your ignorance is painfully clear. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only regulate the size and shape of the federal government within our nation. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states is only a recent interpretation of the constitution via the 14th Amendment. The roles of the federal government are clearly laid out within the Constitution and the states aren't legally bound to follow their rulings. Take care.
Question, are you saying the states can ignore the constitutional limits and regulate as it pleases? To me, that is very dangerous. If the states can regulate arms then what is to stop them from regulating religion or speech or any other constitutional rights? (Rights given to us by our creator) Please explain how you can determine which parts of the constitution the states can ignore.
@jlbarber54 The Bill of Rights has no authority upon the states. Please read your history and take a step away from the liberal nonsense that your teachers gave to you in high school. Several states had an official state religion long after the creation of the federal government. The Constitution was only designed to limit the federal government to specific powers. We have 50 sovereign states within a union and the federal government doesn't control their actions. Take care.
@rtgoodson Thanks for your response... Since I wrote this I have doing some research and reading and have a better insight as to seperations in powers. LOL, I have found access to many audiobooks by such people as Rothbard, Scheuer, Tom Woods and of course Dr. Paul... I always knew the Feds could not dictate but I was under the impression that the states must accept the limitations as the Feds are suppose to.
@vblord The Supreme Court was designed to regulate the laws, at the federal level, that are granted to them under the US constitution. Once again, the US Constitution is a document that describes and limits the roles of the federal government. It's not designed to regulate the roles or powers of the states unless the states granted them that power. The Bill of Rights never even applied to the States until the 14th Amendment and liberal justices. Read up on your history. Take care.
I use to think the B.o.R. was the law of the land in State laws. But the B.o.R. was originally meant to apply solely to the fed govt to prevent encroachment on State sovereignty. But through 14th amend incorporation of B.o.R. has been mandated to the States. This is a funky judicial review. The fed govt is becoming more domineering. They selectively incorporate what would be most advantageous to their desired precedent setting. I seen on the news States are taking DNA from arestee b4 conviction
@cardabanks Do you have a reason for thinking that the Bill of Rights was to apply solely to the federal government? The 2nd Amendment wording is, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They could not have written in a clearer way. We should be thankful the Supreme Court finally hit a home run for once and view this as the victory it is.
@CleanUpCongress Because the Constitution is only designed to regulate the Federal Government and not the sovereign State Governments. Please check your history. Take care.
I agree dortmund. I would add that - at that time (e.g. prior to the 14th amendment) - as an amendment to the Constitution for the United States, - the 2nd Amendment (and the rest) could ONLY ever be expected to apply to the powers vested in the FEDERAL Government UNLESS the text very specifically declared some extension or further lmitation of the powers of the states.
I agree, (now for the but) but we do have the 14th amendment and it was eventually ratified by all the states in the union at the time, although it took until 2003, and the founders realized that we would eventually need to amend the constitution so they wrote article 5 that if 2/3 of the states agreed we could amend it, so in order to decentralize the govt we would have to repeal the 14th amendment like we did the 18th which would also nullify other amendments til then we have all rights
@rtgoodson The ratification was not under duress the civil war was over in 1865, Maryland and Kalifornia didn't ratify the 14th till 1959, Oregon and Kentucky didn't ratify till 1970s and New Jersey and Ohio didn't ratify till 2003 and no one was holding a gun to their head. Now to the 2nd, it says the right of the people to bare arms "Shall Not Be Infringed" which means the Federal Govt can not regulate any firearms which would include but not be limited to rocket launchers etc.
@getnick77 So, we're ignoring the federal occupation of the Southern States, et cetera? Yes, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were ratified under military duress and criminal occupation.
@rtgoodson Now to the rights thing, example in my town we used to put lights in the shape of a cross on our water tower every Christmas the ACLU took us to Federal court saying we were violating Jews and Atheists rights by doing that violating the 1st and 14th, I personally think the courts violated my right to religion and speech but they ruled with the ACLU. More recently a case the ACLU lost was whether a woman could wear a veil on her drivers license picture. Next post double standard.
@getnick77 The first amendment never applied to the states until a liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment. Again, we go back to my original point that the US constitution was never designed to regulate matters on a state level, and that the federal government has zero authority to do so except by the 14th amendment.
@rtgoodson Here very recently, a Preacher in my state was about to burn some religious literature to commemorate 9/11, the mayor of the town told the international news media that that would violate a city burn ordinance that only allows burning of sticks and twigs and that if he did it the Fire Dept would be standing by to put out the fire and he would be fined. Now I've been to this town and they have bonfires 2 stories high for football games with anything that'll burn on them where was ACLU?
I disagree. It's really simple. The bill of rights says in the first amendment that Congress (The feds) shall pass no law against freedom of speech, the press and so on. In every state this is an individual right. If any state or municipality passed a law that you no longer had the freedom of speech, it would be stuck down. The 2nd amendment refers to the right of the "people" which identifies the right as an individual one. Also, the enumeration clause leaves it to the states OR THE PEOPLE.
When the State tramples on the rights of the people, then the Supreme Court steps in to right the wrong as they have in this case. Gun bans violate the people's right to own a gun.
@AXESMI The individual states have the authority to regulate firearms as they see fit. Please read your history and actually view the Constitution before commenting.
The term "unorganized" is the partner to the term "organized". These terms are not constitutional but were created by the Dick Acts in the early 1900's. "Organized' is not "well-regulated" any more than "unorganized" is "not-well-regulated." A well regulated militia MUST be comprised of the fullest extent of the citizenry if it is to meet is intended purpose of proving sufficient to defend against invasions and, in so doing, removing any pretext for a need to raise an army.
...to begin with, the founders never spoke of any need to "raise" a militia. You have to "raise" an army because you are asking those men to give up their day jobs and MAKE their job that of being a soldier. That means you have to pay them. "Raising" an army means recruiting people to be soldiers by promising them MONEY. Members of the militia accept their responsibility to fight for the protection of themselves, their families and their communities. They need no other payment.
I disagree with SA's basic premise that the SCoTUS ruling overturning Chicago's gun ban equates to the federal government gaining more power. The ruling simply confirmed that the right of individuals to bear arms was a natural right, not a legal right.
If the Bill of Rights only applies to states, then why does only Amendment I begin with "Congress..."? Why bother with the tenth at all? And can states determine the applicability of the other Amendments? Can they strike down habeas corpus? Create ex post facto laws? In short, can a state become a tyranny unto itself and still be within the bounds of the constitution?
@AnotherUserNamedPaul Yes, a state can do as it sees fit within its own borders. The states aren't servants of the federal government, but the federal government is a servant of the states. Sadly, that view has flipped upside down within the last 50-100 years, and we now have a tyrannical, federal government in power. The states are only required to recognize the Federal Governments power as it relates to their given authority.The Constitution defined the power of the Fed, and the BoR limited it
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights, it is a list of restrictions placed on the government to protect rights.
The right to raise a militia is a state's right, facilitated by the individual right to bear arms. We the people are the unorganized militia from which the state forms the well-regulated militia.
The unorganized militia, reports the alarm and affects first response, until relieved by the well-regulated militia.
At this point, the only provisions of the first eight amendments that have NOT been incorporated are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment's requirement of grand jury indictment, and the 7th Amendment. The remainder has been expressly incorporated into the 14th Amendment via its due process clause and so now applies to the state as well as the federal government.
The Revolutionary and Constitutional Foundeers Never intended for the country to degenerate into some consolidated franchise that could be manipulted by Mafia Gangsters.
funny, the states rights are now acceptable when some of them supported slavery at one time and through federal government excising their could be unconstitutional will, we got the 13th and 14th amendment and slavery ended.
this seems ass backwards to me, but according to this video, that individual liberty for the minority should actually been defined and given by local's and state's majority and their prejudices and moralities, instead of a uniform law where everyone has a voice
I generally sympathize and agree with you on the subject of what you (I think inappropriately) refer to as "States' Rights": I prefer to think of this as the importance of restricting Federal Powers to those actually granted by the Constitution. Only PEOPLE have rights: States have powers only as granted to them by the governed for the protection of their rights.
Where you say that ""The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights but a list of things the Federal Government could not do to the states." ...I strongly disagree. The Second Amendment speaks of "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms."
@Hodjalll - You are wrong. The full text says the right of the people "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - which was a direct order TO the Federal government not to make any Federal law restricting an individual's or state's right to keep or regulate arms.
Nice try - but you are off the mark wrong in your argument.
I thoroughly agree with you that the Second Amendment only limits the power of CONGRESS. But, where the Second Amendment speaks of a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" which "shall not be infringed" it clearly IS speaking of a right belonging to individuals - not to "states".
With regard to any power of the "states" to "arm their militias", I'll repeat myself: where the 10th Amendment provides that "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..." the fact is that the authority to provide for arming the militia WAS delegated to Congress by Art. I, Sec. 8, 16
The Second Amendment guaranteed protection to a right of "the people" not "States".
Whatever power the states may have retained to restrict firearms ownership would NOT extend to the arms prescribed by Congress for use in the militia. If Congress prescribed M-16s and 9mm pistols, the states could not prevent citizens from owning them.
The absurd thing on the whole is that gun control advocates insist that the RTKABA is restricted to those in the militia ...and then regard an assault weapons ban as a "reasonable" restriction. If its about the militia, the LAST guns you prohibit are assault weapons.
The question now before the Supreme Court is not whether the SECOND Amendment guaranteed a RTKABA to individuals. The question before the Court now is whether the 14th Amendment extended that protection against the power of the states.
The term "THE PEOPLE" (or person(s)") is also employed in the first amendment, (the third speaks of "houses" which are owned by people) and the fourth, and the fifth, and, where "the accused" would be a person, the sixth, seventh and eighth would apply to persons, the ninth speaks of people and - lest you should suggest that "people" should be "assumed" to mean "states", the tenth amendment refers to "...the states OR to the people" ...implying two distinct entities.
Where the Tenth Amendment provides that 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. The fact is that a power to organize, ARM and discipline the militia HAS been delegated to the United States by the text of the sixteenth clause of Article I, Section 8.
Of course, that power was granted to Congress with the understanding that Congress also had a RESPONSIBILITY to see that the militia WAS so organized, armed and disciplined. Had the states passed laws prohibiting the people from possessing weapons - particularly those sorts of weapons prescribed for use in the militia by Congress - this would CLEARLY have amounted to an intrusion by the state governments into the rightful jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Your concerns regarding people who can not be expected to responsibly manage or exercise their right to keep and bear arms are well taken. But, in all honesty, I dont see where that jurisdiction is clearly resolved by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Hard cases make for bad law. All the same, Im confident that could be resolved without much controversy even if it took a constitutional amendment to resolve it. Again: all rights (and powers) come with responsibilities.
At this point, the only provisions of the first eight amendments that have NOT been incorporated are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment's requirement of grand jury indictment, and the 7th Amendment. The remainder has been expressly incorporated into the 14th Amendment via its due process clause and so now applies to the state as well as the federal government.
The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land". Any law, be it federal, state, county or city (local), that violates the U.S. Constitution is considered null and void by free men (and women). It is time for free men & women everywhere to re-acquaint themselves with their Bill of Rights, stand steadfast for liberty by exercising their First Amendment right and/or through civil disobedience of the many unconstitutional laws & demand our Republic's return to CONSTITUTIONAL government.
Each state has its own constitution - the bill of rights pertains to the federal government. This ban, or lifting of it, should have been left up to the citizens of Illinois to decide - not the Supreme Court. Too many times, citizens want to lay back and let the courts decide everything for them so they don't have to do any of the thinking or hard work for themselves. It's like they still want a mommy and daddy making their decisions for them. They should have stood up, en masse, & said NO.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its in plain English, please learn to read English and take an ESL (English as a Second Language) course at you local college.
The Southern avenger is dead wrong on this issue. The 14 amendment has already incorperated nearly all of the bill of rights to the states. Why should the 2A be the exception? There is no logical reason for leaving out one of our most fundemental rights
If SA wants to argue that the 14th amendment be re-interpreted so none of the bill of rights applies to the states, let him make it. But right now, there is no reason to leave out the 2A while incorperating the rest of the bill of rights.
Go to C-Span and do a video search for: Second amendment and states rights. The CATO institute did a great job explaining the difference in whether the court would rule using the immunities clause or the 14th. They discuss both sides of the issue, very educational.
This is perhaps the best philosophical issue I have heard in ten years. The gun issue is really irrelevant the court will strike down Chicago, but the real issue is how they're going to do it.
The Bill of Rights weren't originally intended to apply to the states. Madison even included an amendment that would do this, but it was voted down. Many states did violate them, and this was intended. For example, several states had their own official religions. The 1st Amendment included religious freedom to protect these state religions from the federal government, not the individuals' rights of religion from the states. But the 14th Amendment changed all of that, so it's irrelevant now.
Amendments to the Constitution only apply to the states if they say they do. Otherwise they are only restrictions on the federal government. The first ten amendments only apply to the federal government, but the 13th, 14th, and 15th clearly say that they apply to all levels of government. You technically don't have 1st (or 2nd, 4th, etc.) Amendment rights against the states, and never have. You have the rights of free speech, etc. incorporated under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The founding fathers weren't infallible. They were people too. Although I'm not particularly disturbed by a municipality having strict gun laws, I very strongly support freedom of speech and I don't think that any state restriction of speech should be allowed.
Jack, you may be wrong on this issue. Amendment 2 says the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." No government, state or otherwise, can infringe on this right. The Chicago ban is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, so the 9th and 10th amendments don't permit the ban. I agree that the federal gov't can't regulate guns and that the states can, but without doing a crime, the Chicago gov't can't simply issue the ban. But it can regulate children and mentallyillgunownership.
What if every city banned guns? YOUR argument does not hold ANY water, but good try. I will be unsubscribing. I don't like your OPINIONS. They seem a little dangerous FOR ALL.
Recently? Handguns have been effectively banned in Chicago since 1982.
The ban for (new) handguns comes about because one law says guns must be registered in Chicago, and another says handguns can't be registered after 1982.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
I think SA said the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) limited the Federal government. He did not address the applicability of the remaining amendments to the Constitution.
NO ONE has the right to steal from me a tool that I use to protect the life of me and my family. Be it the president or the mayor. I honestly don't care what some 200+ year old piece of paper has to say. I have the natural right to self defense that isn't granted by a piece of paper or some politicians.
This video made me rethink the nature of the Bill of Rights. Thank you. What do you think of the usage of that name?
And speaking of names, I really would like to see you have more success, but think your moniker is holding you back. I think you should stop going by "The Southern Avenger" and just go by your real name. You're a serious person with serious, humble, and well-thought out arguments, and your branding should reflect that.
I disagree. It's really simple. The bill of rights says in the first amendment that Congress (The feds) shall pass no law against freedom of speech, the press and so on. In every state this is an individual right. If any state or municipality passed a law that you no longer had the freedom of speech, it would be stuck down. The 2nd amendment refers to the right of the "people" which identifies the right as an individual one. Also, the enumeration clause leaves it to the states OR THE PEOPLE.
@dortmundpls The Bill of Rights never applied to the states until the 14th Amendment. Its only purpose was to limit the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the people and the states. A state has the authority to regulate everything not expressly given to the federal government under the constitution. As such, a state can approve a state religion or a ban on the use of weapons. Take care.
@dortmundpls With in the pertinent portions of the US Constitution, it clearly states that it's restricting the FEDERAL Government specifically, and not the individuals or the states. That's the reason States have their own constitutions. In your comment, you have conflicting chronology. The only reason, today, an anti-free-speech state law would be struck-down is because of the Incorporation doctrine consequent of the slaughter house cases. We live under a perversion of The Constitution.
I don't believe the Constitution's prohibitions can be read to mean that states could/should regulate those things it forbade Congress to regulate. Quite the opposite. The states feared a central gov would regulate those things that citizens of the states already enjoyed; freedom, liberty, arms, press, assembly, speech, property, religion, etc. It would make little sense to prohibit the central gov from prohibiting/regulating the very same things the states might prohibit/regulate.
@bbburton The founders understood: people of different states have distinct governing needs in accordance with their society and respective values. Have you read the majority of the other state's Constitutions, in contrast to that of the US Constitution? Does it not seem odd that the states outline most of basic rights; excluding/including little details? Why do you think that is, if the states where not to impose laws, why did the states not use verbatim US Constitution wording in theirs?
@Xonegod What the Founders understood is that the Federal government was a force to be contained. I haven't read all of the State's constitutions, but I can tell you that every state admitted to the Union since ratification was required to guarantee to their citizens a republican form of government. You must remember that it was the states that demanded the addition of the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification. The states were not interested in limiting rights, but in protecting them.
@bbburton Sentence 1: I concur. 2a: It wouldn't require you to read all, but some of them. 2b: You are correct, compatible with a Rep. form of Gov't for many reasons, but NO Req about rights outside of S.William Blackstone's definition of Natural laws. read Tx or Tn Const and find out. 3:The States?; demanded NOTHING!, it was the founders themselves who, after much debate, decided to include the first 10A. 4: The states had no interests, the Framers did. States WHERE the sovereign after.
You should be concerned about SCOTUS applying the 2nd through the due process clause, but the 2nd should rightfully be applied through the privilages and immunities clause. Yes, the 14th amendment does apply the 2nd amendment to the states. Perhaps you should reread the 14th amendment again. The 14th is the "legitimate change" that you mention at 4:04, after that it is the high court providing a check and balance to insure that our government agencies don't overstep their power.
You need read Article 4 Section 2. This basically says a person visiting a State has the same protection under the law as a Resident of that State. The 14th Amendment, after establishing what is a citizen, uses the exact same language. This of course was meant to give Blacks the same protection under the law as everyone else. The 14th Amendment does NOT apply the 2nd Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights to the States.
Until the late 1800s, you were right. But then we passed the 14th Amendment - which, by the way, IS part of the Constitution. That amendment gave the federal government the power to enforce our individual rights against the states. If we accept your position, then we need to dump the whole Bill of Rights completely, since they weren't originally part of the Constitution either, and were added later as the first 10 amendments through the exact same process as the 14th was.
I never thought of it that way. I was always skeptical of gun control. Always thought 2nd Amendment was to protect against it. But I guess its only on the federal level, huh?
The 2nd Amend. makes no distincion between federal or state infringement, unlike the 1st Amend which was clearly written to only prohibit the federal government (Congress shall make no law...).
If the 2nd was only meant for the feds, why doesn't it also read "congress shall make no law"?
Is there any historical record from the Founders, specifically about 2A, that backs up or refutes Jack's arguement?
Because the congress is a federal entity. What he isn't considering is that nearly all states have a STATE constitution which is pretty much built on the basis of the U.S. constitution.
Have transformed my comments into new statement paragraph posted on my channel. Here in this american society, NO Level of government has any rightful ability to regulate churches or taxing power over religious groups.
The federal government has used the constitution as a door mat for many, many years. Art. 1 sec 8 lists what the congress can do, they have overstepped thier bounds a long time ago.
The 2nd amd. states " the right of the people". Anywhere else in the constitution that would be considered an individaul right. The states can regulate, but not deprive the ownership of arms.
It depends on the intent of the 2A. If the intent was a means of abolishing, then no, the state cannot regulate. Then we would all have muskets while they have m16's, .50 cal, tanks etc. Perhaps we are too far gone.
And yes ... the states DO have the right to limit the power of the federal government.
BUT that means they can PROTECT it's property owners FROM the fed, not restrain it's property owners (residents) further with regard to individual rights.
This theory of "states rights' should Never be construed as meaning government permission and privilege. The Bill of Rights pertain to the Freedoms and Liberties of individual citizens. Many of us thought you knew and understood this Basic concept.
@TOWIFELGA it's not a theory every state has a right to govern itself. This is fundamental. The state of England cannot force the state of france to submit to it without breaking the french people and in turn would be growing it's own sovereign state in the process. Sovereignty comes with being a state. As long as states exist they are sovereign. They can delegate this away but it is innate.
This means IM close to being anarchist. The only "law of the land" that should be considered as supreme is the TEN Commandments, NOT Judicial Dictate!
@conspiracy777 exactly as opposed to the government being the sovereign or in other words the dictator of the law. The Government is supposed to rise from the people's wants and needs not the wants of the politicians for political gain. They grow the government even more from this making us suffer while they benefit from more control over our lives.
Your reasoning here has caught me off guard but I must say that I find no fault with it. That said, where does the ACLU get off on preventing religious meetings, etc. on government property that is not federal? They do it quite often and according to your apparently fautless logic I can see no reason why they should. Also, does that not mean that states have the right to curb speech, so long as what people are saying does not address a federal issue?
The whole basis of the constitution is that it was written FOR the people, not for the states.
Think of it this way.
It is our "contract" with the government (all government) to protect US (we the people) FROM government, not so that the states would be protected to regulate us.
If a state or local government decided to suddenly build a fence around my town and declare that we will all now be muslim and all property seized, the fed can not step in and protect us because it's the states right?
Jack I love you but I must disagree. The Bill of Rights are a list of rights that no level of government can deny. States rights are limited to the powers not mentioned in the US Constitution. Heath care is not mentioned in the Constitution so it is not subject to federal control. If a state wishes to provide health care to is citizens they can. Gun ownership is mentioned in the constitution and that means no state can restrict that right.
The whole point of having a republic is so that each state can be a "laboratory" unto itself, and the states that prosper or enact sensible policy can serve as an example of what works to the other states in the union. If you believe in competition in a market of goods, then you must understand that it works in a market of ideas, too. Don't forget your right to vote with your feet, my friend. Incorporation doctrine was as destructive of these ends as anything in jurisprudential history.
@immanent Agreed, though this does not address collusion, the same kind of collusion the EU is going threw now. Voting with your feet is one thing, but what about the investment one has in a given state? Is one to lose hi/her investment in property in said state and move to another only to have the same thing happen there? True using federal power in this way does not set well, but we must then ask if living under a federal or state power is really logical at all, the Spooner argument.
This means you have to be vocal in your state government as well as federal. Local, too. No one ever said being free was easy. You can't sit on your couch and expect not to get walked on, but relying on the central government to enforce your freedoms against your state is sloth that just invites trouble to all people in all states, IMO.
@immanent Again we find ourselves in agreement, but as if to prove my point I was just reading a story on the amount of money that will be spent by an incumbent politician, over $30M. Eternal vigilance is something we all should take more note of, yet when gvt steal tax money then forces parents to send their child to a gvt school and learn gvt text so kids know that they must accept theft from gvt as a way of life this is a problem. And now almost every kid I meet wants to work for gvt.
Its almost as if every kid I meet is Ok with, and in fact, wants to be a furnace worker so long as their well paid and not put in the furnace
Police won't even stand up to their respective city councils
Additionally, we can't even get people to understand that if you work for: gvt, defense industry, most airlines, hospitals, banks, telecom, etc. That their jobs are to a large degree subsidized by theft
Vigilance means 70% unemployment until we produce again as a nation
Every one send Jack a youtube email and request he have a pannel discussion on this matter with Gutzman, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Andrew Napalitano, Doug Casey, and Pat Buchanon.
I really like Jack Hunter, but on this issue I really think we need more discussion before we make any snap judgements.
Not only that a pannel like that would be great for learning for all of us.
I say Jack should invite Mr. Obama to the discussion as well, I don't think he would show up, but I do think SA should make the invitation. Mr. Obama is a smart man, and I would be delighted to hear his responses along side Ron Paul's and Lew Rockwell's and Pat Buchanon, indeed it would be an educational experience. I wonder how it would go?
It would be the first time that we saw Obama in a philosophical rather than a political debate, and one specifically on the Constitution.
We *know* that these other guys know the Constitution, but we really don't know how much Obama knows about it, nor how he interprets it. (Aside from his actions thus far, anyways.)
I usually agree with Jack but on this point I think he's wrong. While the Constitution was originally intended to limit only the federal government, the 14th Amendment, duly ratified, prohibits the states from denying US citizens their individual rights as well. The right to arms is an inalienable right that the states should not be allowed to infringe upon either. It is codified under the 2nd Amendment, unlike health care or other issues that Jack fears will be unleashed by an intrusive federa
fvecc 2 months ago
There are instances in the Bill of Rights where Congress is explicitly states, such as the first. Then there are instances where no one body is mentioned, such as the second. The obvious reading of this is that while the Federal Government CAN NOT limit speech, the states can and NO body can limit the right to keep and bear arms.
HaroldRehling 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Jack hunter you are complete IDIOT.
Mathew1985AZ 6 months ago
I like listening to Jack Hunter and all, but I disagree about the Bill of Rights not being individual rights. I dont see why they cant be both individual rights and restraints on the Federal government.. To argue that they could make health care a right on this premise would require an amendment..not likely to happen. There are individual rights within the BORs and at the same time limitations on federal power. To say otherwise would allow for the feds to seek control of the states .....
hjhemin1 7 months ago
@hjhemin1 ....by buying off the state legislatures and govenors, thus taking the steps necessary to side step the bill of rights and impose despotism on the individuals, an all they would need is a willing legislature. MOney corrupts, The Bill of rights limits fed power, but also says that we have certain individual rights that no government can take away...federal or state. This is best exemplified in the 9th and 10th amendments, moreso the 9th, yet the 10th gives the people power too.
hjhemin1 7 months ago
2:22 The most important right of all is the right of the individual against whatever unjust force, not the right of states to oppose the federal government. This is why I hate neoconfederates, deep inside they are authoritarian, anti-individualists who simply hate the federal government but love the tyranny of state and local governments.
therealaj123 9 months ago
0:55 Bullshit. The right to free speech etc. are individual rights, not state rights.
therealaj123 9 months ago
I thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land...
bsg1206 9 months ago
@bsg1206 apparently Jack Hunter doesn't understand its purpose of recognizing unalienable individual rights. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are not "state rights". Jack is a total idiot.
Mathew1985AZ 6 months ago
@Mathew1985AZ I have read quite a bit since I wrote this comment and I think that Jack is right. Ultimately, the second amendment applies only to the federal government. As much as you or I wouldn't like it, Illinois, New York, and California are technically allowed to be as unfree as they choose according to the tenth amendment. That is okay though because that same amendment keeps us safe from the massive taxes and regulations those states seem to enjoy.
bsg1206 6 months ago
@bsg1206 I doubt that. And if you and Hunter are right, what the fuck would be the purpose of even being an american.if thats the truth, then FUCK even trying to live here.
Mathew1985AZ 6 months ago
@Mathew1985AZ The point is, and always has been, self government. It's a lot easier to move out of a state with laws that you don't like than to leave the nation entirely. This system only works when the feds stay limited to their constitutional powers, though.
bsg1206 6 months ago
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
CountArtha 11 months ago
Xonegod...
You clearly have not studied the Second Amendment or the idea of how a militia could possibly be "necessary" to the security of a free state if it is not even ADEQUATE to such. With all due respect to those who participate in the "State Defense Forces" or "State Guards" ...they are little more than what the intelligence agencies refer to as "useful idiots".
HodjaIII 1 year ago
Our first mistake was ever allowing Congress to neglect the responsibility to organize, arm and discipline the militia which is concurrent with the POWERS to do so granted to Congress by the Constitution.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
@HodjaIII The vast majority of the states have their Militias. They are called State Defense Forces or State Guard. In all practicality pho-tay-to, poh-tah-to... And no one is stopping you from forming up and training your own group. Just have a good lawyer on retainer in some of the more liberal states, as the harassment from police/DHS could result in a win-fall. Official Oppression is a very serious charge, and so is a 1983 lawsuit. Both can only be cured with monetary restitution. :)
..X..
Xonegod 1 year ago
Congress should object to state laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms as posing violations and incursions into the jurisdiction properly given to Congress to provide for organizing, ARMING and disciplining the militia. If Congress really cared about preserving the militia AND protecting the right to keep and bear arms, it would oppose state laws like those in Heller and McDonald as violations of its jurisdiction and un-constitutional assumptions of jurisdiction by the states.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
There is really a parallel here between the authority of Congress to organize, arm and discipline the militia and its power over immigration (think of Arizona).
The fact is that Congress generally IGNORES its RESPONSIBILITY in both cases and then cites the constitutional authority given to it by the Constitution over both powers as a kind of prerogative to ABUSE the power by NEGLECTING the subject to which it applies.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
Another important point to be made here...
The Second Amendment was written in DIRECT response to objections raised against the Constitution - and specifically objections raised in response to the 16th clause of Article I, Section 8 which, among other powers, gave Congress authority to 'ARM' the militia. Several state ratifications requested that this power be returned TO THE STATES. The Second Amendment quite specifically IGNORED that request by specifically attributing a right of THE PEOPLE.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
@ Eisenmond
Sorry ...its been a LONG time since I looked at this thread.
In any case ...please show me where I have said ANYTHING that contradicts what you have said or where you have said anything that "corrects" anything that I have said.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
@j1a2r34 is correct. Although the Constitution is designed to limit the power of the federal government, the phrase "nor prohibited by it to the states" clearly shows intent of the founders to keep the states from infringing upon the rights listed in the previous nine amendments.
hoverkrazy 1 year ago
Comment removed
hoverkrazy 1 year ago
It sounds a little far fetched at first but I fear he (SA) is right on this one.
Sideshowbobx 1 year ago
so with this logic a state can do what ever the fuck they wanted....no right to free speech, no freedom of anything, hell they could even steel and murder in their own state. So the bill of rights does not apply to the states? Bullshit!
k94845 1 year ago
@k94845 That is correct. The federal government and the bill of rights have no legal authority over the states. We have 50 sovereign states within the union that come together on a federal level for a limited number of purposes. The federal government has no legal authority to carry out the vast majority of issues that it currently takes up. For example, Roe v. Wade is an issue best left to the states to decide on an individual basis. The Bill of Rights was only intended to limit the Feds. Later
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson I didn't realize that. With rode vs wade I understand and agreed with the state by state. When anyone talks about their first, second, fourth amendment right with regards to police and legal issues they are wrong or only right if it's in the states constitution or involves the federal gov?
k94845 1 year ago
@k94845 Technically, the original version of the US constitution only granted the rights of the first, second, and fourth amendments to the people as it relates to the federal government. Following the passage of the 14th Amendment, judges have slowly forced the bill of rights onto the states via the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. All in all, the US Constitution only defines the role of the federal government.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson I see your point.
k94845 1 year ago
Respond to this video... didn't the states ratify the constitution and therefore must follow it or am i mistaken?
k94845 1 year ago
If the Southern Avenger is correct, then the framers shouldn't have signed a Declaration of Independence that mentioned UNALIENABLE rights. If any of the bill of prohibitions (1st 10 amendments) were to be limited exclusively to a federal government prohibition, it would be the first which clearly delineates that the FEDERAL "congress shall pass no law" leaving an obvious opening for states to pass laws abridging speech, assembly, establishment of religion and to seek redress of grievances.
j1a2r34 1 year ago
@j1a2r34 The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority, and I'm confused on why you even bother to mention it within this discussion. The Constitution was designed as a compact between the states for the creation of a common federal government with limited powers. These powers are specifically defined within the Constitution, and they're not designed to limit the state governments in any fashion. The states created the federal government; not the other way around.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson The first 9 amendments list prohibitions against government interference against RIGHTS retained by the people. Understanding that these rights are not subject to any alienation mechanism outside of them being extended to the point where others are harmed is, I believe an important consideration to understanding the framers intentions. The tenth redundantly reminds us that federal powers are few and enumerated and those not listed are retained by the states and the people.
j1a2r34 1 year ago
@j1a2r34 Those prohibitions (The Bill of Rights) were only designed to limit the power of the federal government, and they're only applied to the states via the 14th. As I've stated before, the Constitution was only designed to shape, define, and limit the powers of the Federal Government while preserving the powers of the states and the people. Sadly, we've drifted away from that concept since The War Between the States and the start of the Progressive Movement in the US.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson I can respectfully agree to disagree.
I accept the 10th amendment literally to mean exactly what it 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."
Article 1, Section 8 lists the delegated powers.
The last 4 words in the 10th amendment refers to prohibitions listed in the previous 9 amendments.
All other rights not mentioned are reserved to the states.
j1a2r34 1 year ago
The point here is that the US constitution sets the rules under which the People,States and US federal government participate in the United States. Every State has its own Constitution that sets the rules under which the People and the State government participate in that state. The US Supreme Court is not competent to overrule State courts on issus that lie outside the purview of the US federal government. SA is right to say that Chicago can regulate gun access if Illinois constitution permits.
jwmpraha 1 year ago
FAIL- HUGE FAIL!!!
Bill of Right was INDEED guarantees of individual Rights. The Federal Gov't is limited by it yes, but the States are also bound by the agreement they ratified (aka the Constitution). It is also incorrect to say that the 10th is violated here. The Tenth is in fact in normal play here as the Sates are bound to abide by the Constitution as well, specifically in the Bill of Rights.
Scraghunter 1 year ago
@Scraghunter No, your ignorance is amazing. The Bill of Rights was only intended to limit the power of the federal government against the people and their sovereign states. For example, several states maintained an official state religion long after our founding, as well as, limited free speech or press, et cetera. State law triumphs federal law on every thing not given to it under the constitution. The states created the federal government; not the other way around. Take care.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@Scraghunter sadly, your ignorance is amazing. The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution were only designed to limit and define the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights never applied to the states until the passage of the 14th Amendment following the War of Northern Aggression. Please go back and take a look at our history, and you'll be amazed at what you learn. take care.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Nope. I'm glad people are trying to examine the Constitution to see just exactly what it says, but this is a misinterpretation--at least I hope it's not intentionally meant to be misleading.
Read the 2nd Amendment. The wording is "...shall not be infringed." Very clear. The 10th Amendment tells us that there are things prohibited to the states. With this in mind, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to suggest that we should be mentally adding "except by the states" to the end of it.
CleanUpCongress 1 year ago
@CleanUpCongress Sorry, your ignorance is painfully clear. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only regulate the size and shape of the federal government within our nation. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states is only a recent interpretation of the constitution via the 14th Amendment. The roles of the federal government are clearly laid out within the Constitution and the states aren't legally bound to follow their rulings. Take care.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Question, are you saying the states can ignore the constitutional limits and regulate as it pleases? To me, that is very dangerous. If the states can regulate arms then what is to stop them from regulating religion or speech or any other constitutional rights? (Rights given to us by our creator) Please explain how you can determine which parts of the constitution the states can ignore.
jlbarber54 1 year ago
@jlbarber54 The Bill of Rights has no authority upon the states. Please read your history and take a step away from the liberal nonsense that your teachers gave to you in high school. Several states had an official state religion long after the creation of the federal government. The Constitution was only designed to limit the federal government to specific powers. We have 50 sovereign states within a union and the federal government doesn't control their actions. Take care.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson Thanks for your response... Since I wrote this I have doing some research and reading and have a better insight as to seperations in powers. LOL, I have found access to many audiobooks by such people as Rothbard, Scheuer, Tom Woods and of course Dr. Paul... I always knew the Feds could not dictate but I was under the impression that the states must accept the limitations as the Feds are suppose to.
jlbarber54 1 year ago
Unfortunately.
.
What is the Supreme Court for then, if not to decide these types of cases?
.
That's the true argument.. not said.
.
But the same in any mention of activist judges.
.
vblord 1 year ago
@vblord The Supreme Court was designed to regulate the laws, at the federal level, that are granted to them under the US constitution. Once again, the US Constitution is a document that describes and limits the roles of the federal government. It's not designed to regulate the roles or powers of the states unless the states granted them that power. The Bill of Rights never even applied to the States until the 14th Amendment and liberal justices. Read up on your history. Take care.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
I use to think the B.o.R. was the law of the land in State laws. But the B.o.R. was originally meant to apply solely to the fed govt to prevent encroachment on State sovereignty. But through 14th amend incorporation of B.o.R. has been mandated to the States. This is a funky judicial review. The fed govt is becoming more domineering. They selectively incorporate what would be most advantageous to their desired precedent setting. I seen on the news States are taking DNA from arestee b4 conviction
cardabanks 1 year ago
@cardabanks Do you have a reason for thinking that the Bill of Rights was to apply solely to the federal government? The 2nd Amendment wording is, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They could not have written in a clearer way. We should be thankful the Supreme Court finally hit a home run for once and view this as the victory it is.
CleanUpCongress 1 year ago 3
@CleanUpCongress Because the Constitution is only designed to regulate the Federal Government and not the sovereign State Governments. Please check your history. Take care.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@cardabanks Exactly. We've been hijacked within our own country by a tyrannical government.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
I agree dortmund. I would add that - at that time (e.g. prior to the 14th amendment) - as an amendment to the Constitution for the United States, - the 2nd Amendment (and the rest) could ONLY ever be expected to apply to the powers vested in the FEDERAL Government UNLESS the text very specifically declared some extension or further lmitation of the powers of the states.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
I agree, (now for the but) but we do have the 14th amendment and it was eventually ratified by all the states in the union at the time, although it took until 2003, and the founders realized that we would eventually need to amend the constitution so they wrote article 5 that if 2/3 of the states agreed we could amend it, so in order to decentralize the govt we would have to repeal the 14th amendment like we did the 18th which would also nullify other amendments til then we have all rights
getnick77 1 year ago
@getnick77 Yes, the 14th Amendment was ratified via the force of arms. Contracts are void if conducted via duress. Hmm...
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson The ratification was not under duress the civil war was over in 1865, Maryland and Kalifornia didn't ratify the 14th till 1959, Oregon and Kentucky didn't ratify till 1970s and New Jersey and Ohio didn't ratify till 2003 and no one was holding a gun to their head. Now to the 2nd, it says the right of the people to bare arms "Shall Not Be Infringed" which means the Federal Govt can not regulate any firearms which would include but not be limited to rocket launchers etc.
getnick77 1 year ago
@getnick77 So, we're ignoring the federal occupation of the Southern States, et cetera? Yes, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were ratified under military duress and criminal occupation.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson Now to the rights thing, example in my town we used to put lights in the shape of a cross on our water tower every Christmas the ACLU took us to Federal court saying we were violating Jews and Atheists rights by doing that violating the 1st and 14th, I personally think the courts violated my right to religion and speech but they ruled with the ACLU. More recently a case the ACLU lost was whether a woman could wear a veil on her drivers license picture. Next post double standard.
getnick77 1 year ago
@getnick77 The first amendment never applied to the states until a liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment. Again, we go back to my original point that the US constitution was never designed to regulate matters on a state level, and that the federal government has zero authority to do so except by the 14th amendment.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson Man don't email me anymore till you read my posts and read the Constitution
getnick77 1 year ago
@rtgoodson Here very recently, a Preacher in my state was about to burn some religious literature to commemorate 9/11, the mayor of the town told the international news media that that would violate a city burn ordinance that only allows burning of sticks and twigs and that if he did it the Fire Dept would be standing by to put out the fire and he would be fined. Now I've been to this town and they have bonfires 2 stories high for football games with anything that'll burn on them where was ACLU?
getnick77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I disagree. It's really simple. The bill of rights says in the first amendment that Congress (The feds) shall pass no law against freedom of speech, the press and so on. In every state this is an individual right. If any state or municipality passed a law that you no longer had the freedom of speech, it would be stuck down. The 2nd amendment refers to the right of the "people" which identifies the right as an individual one. Also, the enumeration clause leaves it to the states OR THE PEOPLE.
dortmundpls 1 year ago
When the State tramples on the rights of the people, then the Supreme Court steps in to right the wrong as they have in this case. Gun bans violate the people's right to own a gun.
AXESMI 1 year ago
@AXESMI The individual states have the authority to regulate firearms as they see fit. Please read your history and actually view the Constitution before commenting.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Congratulations on your willingness to upset your natural supporters to point out what you see as true.
I don't know if you are correct, but you make sense.
christianpatriot125 1 year ago
borderraven,
The term "unorganized" is the partner to the term "organized". These terms are not constitutional but were created by the Dick Acts in the early 1900's. "Organized' is not "well-regulated" any more than "unorganized" is "not-well-regulated." A well regulated militia MUST be comprised of the fullest extent of the citizenry if it is to meet is intended purpose of proving sufficient to defend against invasions and, in so doing, removing any pretext for a need to raise an army.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
borderraven,
...to begin with, the founders never spoke of any need to "raise" a militia. You have to "raise" an army because you are asking those men to give up their day jobs and MAKE their job that of being a soldier. That means you have to pay them. "Raising" an army means recruiting people to be soldiers by promising them MONEY. Members of the militia accept their responsibility to fight for the protection of themselves, their families and their communities. They need no other payment.
HodjaIII 1 year ago
I disagree with SA's basic premise that the SCoTUS ruling overturning Chicago's gun ban equates to the federal government gaining more power. The ruling simply confirmed that the right of individuals to bear arms was a natural right, not a legal right.
freerangebiped 1 year ago
If the Bill of Rights only applies to states, then why does only Amendment I begin with "Congress..."? Why bother with the tenth at all? And can states determine the applicability of the other Amendments? Can they strike down habeas corpus? Create ex post facto laws? In short, can a state become a tyranny unto itself and still be within the bounds of the constitution?
AnotherUserNamedPaul 1 year ago
@AnotherUserNamedPaul Yes, a state can do as it sees fit within its own borders. The states aren't servants of the federal government, but the federal government is a servant of the states. Sadly, that view has flipped upside down within the last 50-100 years, and we now have a tyrannical, federal government in power. The states are only required to recognize the Federal Governments power as it relates to their given authority.The Constitution defined the power of the Fed, and the BoR limited it
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Even more succinct:
Nice thought, Supreme Court, but this is outside of your jurisdiction.
ufamizm 2 years ago
Very well done. Succinct, clear, and alarming.
Urantianow 2 years ago
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights, it is a list of restrictions placed on the government to protect rights.
The right to raise a militia is a state's right, facilitated by the individual right to bear arms. We the people are the unorganized militia from which the state forms the well-regulated militia.
The unorganized militia, reports the alarm and affects first response, until relieved by the well-regulated militia.
borderraven 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
At this point, the only provisions of the first eight amendments that have NOT been incorporated are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment's requirement of grand jury indictment, and the 7th Amendment. The remainder has been expressly incorporated into the 14th Amendment via its due process clause and so now applies to the state as well as the federal government.
johnnyhellion 2 years ago
Constitution Begins with "WE THE PEOPLE"
The Revolutionary and Constitutional Foundeers Never intended for the country to degenerate into some consolidated franchise that could be manipulted by Mafia Gangsters.
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago 2
funny, the states rights are now acceptable when some of them supported slavery at one time and through federal government excising their could be unconstitutional will, we got the 13th and 14th amendment and slavery ended.
this seems ass backwards to me, but according to this video, that individual liberty for the minority should actually been defined and given by local's and state's majority and their prejudices and moralities, instead of a uniform law where everyone has a voice
bullshit
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
I generally sympathize and agree with you on the subject of what you (I think inappropriately) refer to as "States' Rights": I prefer to think of this as the importance of restricting Federal Powers to those actually granted by the Constitution. Only PEOPLE have rights: States have powers only as granted to them by the governed for the protection of their rights.
HodjaIII 2 years ago 4
Where you say that ""The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights but a list of things the Federal Government could not do to the states." ...I strongly disagree. The Second Amendment speaks of "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms."
HodjaIII 2 years ago 3
@Hodjalll - You are wrong. The full text says the right of the people "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - which was a direct order TO the Federal government not to make any Federal law restricting an individual's or state's right to keep or regulate arms.
Nice try - but you are off the mark wrong in your argument.
Eisenmond 2 years ago
Eisenmond,
You have misunderstood my point.
I thoroughly agree with you that the Second Amendment only limits the power of CONGRESS. But, where the Second Amendment speaks of a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" which "shall not be infringed" it clearly IS speaking of a right belonging to individuals - not to "states".
HodjaIII 2 years ago
With regard to any power of the "states" to "arm their militias", I'll repeat myself: where the 10th Amendment provides that "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..." the fact is that the authority to provide for arming the militia WAS delegated to Congress by Art. I, Sec. 8, 16
The Second Amendment guaranteed protection to a right of "the people" not "States".
HodjaIII 2 years ago
Whatever power the states may have retained to restrict firearms ownership would NOT extend to the arms prescribed by Congress for use in the militia. If Congress prescribed M-16s and 9mm pistols, the states could not prevent citizens from owning them.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
The absurd thing on the whole is that gun control advocates insist that the RTKABA is restricted to those in the militia ...and then regard an assault weapons ban as a "reasonable" restriction. If its about the militia, the LAST guns you prohibit are assault weapons.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
The question now before the Supreme Court is not whether the SECOND Amendment guaranteed a RTKABA to individuals. The question before the Court now is whether the 14th Amendment extended that protection against the power of the states.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
The term "THE PEOPLE" (or person(s)") is also employed in the first amendment, (the third speaks of "houses" which are owned by people) and the fourth, and the fifth, and, where "the accused" would be a person, the sixth, seventh and eighth would apply to persons, the ninth speaks of people and - lest you should suggest that "people" should be "assumed" to mean "states", the tenth amendment refers to "...the states OR to the people" ...implying two distinct entities.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
Where the Tenth Amendment provides that 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. The fact is that a power to organize, ARM and discipline the militia HAS been delegated to the United States by the text of the sixteenth clause of Article I, Section 8.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
Of course, that power was granted to Congress with the understanding that Congress also had a RESPONSIBILITY to see that the militia WAS so organized, armed and disciplined. Had the states passed laws prohibiting the people from possessing weapons - particularly those sorts of weapons prescribed for use in the militia by Congress - this would CLEARLY have amounted to an intrusion by the state governments into the rightful jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
Your concerns regarding people who can not be expected to responsibly manage or exercise their right to keep and bear arms are well taken. But, in all honesty, I dont see where that jurisdiction is clearly resolved by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Hard cases make for bad law. All the same, Im confident that could be resolved without much controversy even if it took a constitutional amendment to resolve it. Again: all rights (and powers) come with responsibilities.
HodjaIII 2 years ago
At this point, the only provisions of the first eight amendments that have NOT been incorporated are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the 5th Amendment's requirement of grand jury indictment, and the 7th Amendment. The remainder has been expressly incorporated into the 14th Amendment via its due process clause and so now applies to the state as well as the federal government.
johnnyhellion 2 years ago
The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land". Any law, be it federal, state, county or city (local), that violates the U.S. Constitution is considered null and void by free men (and women). It is time for free men & women everywhere to re-acquaint themselves with their Bill of Rights, stand steadfast for liberty by exercising their First Amendment right and/or through civil disobedience of the many unconstitutional laws & demand our Republic's return to CONSTITUTIONAL government.
TheRanger59 2 years ago
Each state has its own constitution - the bill of rights pertains to the federal government. This ban, or lifting of it, should have been left up to the citizens of Illinois to decide - not the Supreme Court. Too many times, citizens want to lay back and let the courts decide everything for them so they don't have to do any of the thinking or hard work for themselves. It's like they still want a mommy and daddy making their decisions for them. They should have stood up, en masse, & said NO.
dlhiles 2 years ago
@SA, the constitution should never come before liberty...
thekingofcorsairs 2 years ago
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its in plain English, please learn to read English and take an ESL (English as a Second Language) course at you local college.
xchanxzenx 2 years ago
Boo!
xchanxzenx 2 years ago
SA hit the nail on the head again.
Please keep up the good work SA.
remyllebeau77 2 years ago
The Southern avenger is dead wrong on this issue. The 14 amendment has already incorperated nearly all of the bill of rights to the states. Why should the 2A be the exception? There is no logical reason for leaving out one of our most fundemental rights
If SA wants to argue that the 14th amendment be re-interpreted so none of the bill of rights applies to the states, let him make it. But right now, there is no reason to leave out the 2A while incorperating the rest of the bill of rights.
TheStapleGunKid 2 years ago 3
Go to C-Span and do a video search for: Second amendment and states rights. The CATO institute did a great job explaining the difference in whether the court would rule using the immunities clause or the 14th. They discuss both sides of the issue, very educational.
This is perhaps the best philosophical issue I have heard in ten years. The gun issue is really irrelevant the court will strike down Chicago, but the real issue is how they're going to do it.
anarchylogic 2 years ago
Isn't weapon ownership a human right?
CABALmk2 2 years ago 3
The Bill of Rights weren't originally intended to apply to the states. Madison even included an amendment that would do this, but it was voted down. Many states did violate them, and this was intended. For example, several states had their own official religions. The 1st Amendment included religious freedom to protect these state religions from the federal government, not the individuals' rights of religion from the states. But the 14th Amendment changed all of that, so it's irrelevant now.
Evolve451 2 years ago
Amendments to the Constitution only apply to the states if they say they do. Otherwise they are only restrictions on the federal government. The first ten amendments only apply to the federal government, but the 13th, 14th, and 15th clearly say that they apply to all levels of government. You technically don't have 1st (or 2nd, 4th, etc.) Amendment rights against the states, and never have. You have the rights of free speech, etc. incorporated under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Evolve451 2 years ago
Comment removed
voteDRNO 2 years ago
The founding fathers weren't infallible. They were people too. Although I'm not particularly disturbed by a municipality having strict gun laws, I very strongly support freedom of speech and I don't think that any state restriction of speech should be allowed.
KarateKidX 2 years ago
@KarateKidX
Quotes from the constution
article IV part 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
KarateKidX 2 years ago
Jack, you may be wrong on this issue. Amendment 2 says the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." No government, state or otherwise, can infringe on this right. The Chicago ban is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, so the 9th and 10th amendments don't permit the ban. I agree that the federal gov't can't regulate guns and that the states can, but without doing a crime, the Chicago gov't can't simply issue the ban. But it can regulate children and mentallyillgunownership.
EyeOfScrutiny 2 years ago 2
clueless
larnfow 2 years ago
What if every city banned guns? YOUR argument does not hold ANY water, but good try. I will be unsubscribing. I don't like your OPINIONS. They seem a little dangerous FOR ALL.
lenny380 2 years ago
Recently? Handguns have been effectively banned in Chicago since 1982.
The ban for (new) handguns comes about because one law says guns must be registered in Chicago, and another says handguns can't be registered after 1982.
dreamcore 2 years ago
Malarkey. Depriving me of a tool to defend my life is depriving me of life and liberty without due process.
If the Amendments to the Constitution only apply to the Federal Government, then any state can bring back slavery??
StrivingForSurvival 2 years ago 3
@StrivingForSurvival
The 13th Amendment clearly states:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
marcdevon 2 years ago
But this guy said the Amendments only applied to the Federal government, not the states. If that is true, then states can disregard the 13th.
StrivingForSurvival 2 years ago 3
@StrivingForSurvival
I think SA said the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) limited the Federal government. He did not address the applicability of the remaining amendments to the Constitution.
marcdevon 2 years ago
NO ONE has the right to steal from me a tool that I use to protect the life of me and my family. Be it the president or the mayor. I honestly don't care what some 200+ year old piece of paper has to say. I have the natural right to self defense that isn't granted by a piece of paper or some politicians.
MandrikSG 2 years ago
This video made me rethink the nature of the Bill of Rights. Thank you. What do you think of the usage of that name?
And speaking of names, I really would like to see you have more success, but think your moniker is holding you back. I think you should stop going by "The Southern Avenger" and just go by your real name. You're a serious person with serious, humble, and well-thought out arguments, and your branding should reflect that.
ediblepet 2 years ago
I disagree. It's really simple. The bill of rights says in the first amendment that Congress (The feds) shall pass no law against freedom of speech, the press and so on. In every state this is an individual right. If any state or municipality passed a law that you no longer had the freedom of speech, it would be stuck down. The 2nd amendment refers to the right of the "people" which identifies the right as an individual one. Also, the enumeration clause leaves it to the states OR THE PEOPLE.
dortmundpls 2 years ago 9
@dortmundpls The Bill of Rights never applied to the states until the 14th Amendment. Its only purpose was to limit the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the people and the states. A state has the authority to regulate everything not expressly given to the federal government under the constitution. As such, a state can approve a state religion or a ban on the use of weapons. Take care.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@dortmundpls With in the pertinent portions of the US Constitution, it clearly states that it's restricting the FEDERAL Government specifically, and not the individuals or the states. That's the reason States have their own constitutions. In your comment, you have conflicting chronology. The only reason, today, an anti-free-speech state law would be struck-down is because of the Incorporation doctrine consequent of the slaughter house cases. We live under a perversion of The Constitution.
..X..
Xonegod 1 year ago
I don't believe the Constitution's prohibitions can be read to mean that states could/should regulate those things it forbade Congress to regulate. Quite the opposite. The states feared a central gov would regulate those things that citizens of the states already enjoyed; freedom, liberty, arms, press, assembly, speech, property, religion, etc. It would make little sense to prohibit the central gov from prohibiting/regulating the very same things the states might prohibit/regulate.
bbburton 2 years ago 9
@bbburton The founders understood: people of different states have distinct governing needs in accordance with their society and respective values. Have you read the majority of the other state's Constitutions, in contrast to that of the US Constitution? Does it not seem odd that the states outline most of basic rights; excluding/including little details? Why do you think that is, if the states where not to impose laws, why did the states not use verbatim US Constitution wording in theirs?
.X..
Xonegod 1 year ago
@Xonegod What the Founders understood is that the Federal government was a force to be contained. I haven't read all of the State's constitutions, but I can tell you that every state admitted to the Union since ratification was required to guarantee to their citizens a republican form of government. You must remember that it was the states that demanded the addition of the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification. The states were not interested in limiting rights, but in protecting them.
bbburton 1 year ago
@bbburton Sentence 1: I concur. 2a: It wouldn't require you to read all, but some of them. 2b: You are correct, compatible with a Rep. form of Gov't for many reasons, but NO Req about rights outside of S.William Blackstone's definition of Natural laws. read Tx or Tn Const and find out. 3:The States?; demanded NOTHING!, it was the founders themselves who, after much debate, decided to include the first 10A. 4: The states had no interests, the Framers did. States WHERE the sovereign after.
..X..
Xonegod 1 year ago
You should be concerned about SCOTUS applying the 2nd through the due process clause, but the 2nd should rightfully be applied through the privilages and immunities clause. Yes, the 14th amendment does apply the 2nd amendment to the states. Perhaps you should reread the 14th amendment again. The 14th is the "legitimate change" that you mention at 4:04, after that it is the high court providing a check and balance to insure that our government agencies don't overstep their power.
BullyThePucky 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
31buckeye40 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BullyThe Pucky,
You need read Article 4 Section 2. This basically says a person visiting a State has the same protection under the law as a Resident of that State. The 14th Amendment, after establishing what is a citizen, uses the exact same language. This of course was meant to give Blacks the same protection under the law as everyone else. The 14th Amendment does NOT apply the 2nd Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights to the States.
31buckeye40 2 years ago
Until the late 1800s, you were right. But then we passed the 14th Amendment - which, by the way, IS part of the Constitution. That amendment gave the federal government the power to enforce our individual rights against the states. If we accept your position, then we need to dump the whole Bill of Rights completely, since they weren't originally part of the Constitution either, and were added later as the first 10 amendments through the exact same process as the 14th was.
Evolve451 2 years ago
I never thought of it that way. I was always skeptical of gun control. Always thought 2nd Amendment was to protect against it. But I guess its only on the federal level, huh?
BlameTheFirst 2 years ago
Interesting article here. Need to think on this one...
luxordeathbed 2 years ago
I'm a little confused by Jack's conclusion here.
The 2nd Amend. makes no distincion between federal or state infringement, unlike the 1st Amend which was clearly written to only prohibit the federal government (Congress shall make no law...).
If the 2nd was only meant for the feds, why doesn't it also read "congress shall make no law"?
Is there any historical record from the Founders, specifically about 2A, that backs up or refutes Jack's arguement?
MrPloppy1 2 years ago 4
Because the congress is a federal entity. What he isn't considering is that nearly all states have a STATE constitution which is pretty much built on the basis of the U.S. constitution.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
@MrPloppy1
My read of the FF seems to make it clear that there are *NO* restrictions on the 2A.
If there were, the States could disarm the people at a whim, making modern day Fiefdoms out of each state!
The ability to defend oneself is a god given right, and cannot be infringed by ANYONE.
The argument that insane people can get guns is a well-worn one used by gun control freaks to strip the citizen of their god-given rights.
VonHelton 2 years ago 3
Watch this:
URL: c-spanvideo . org /program /292308-1
.
kmg501 2 years ago
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the RIGHT of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
What part of "shall not be infringed" does anyone not understand?
.
kmg501 2 years ago 4
Have transformed my comments into new statement paragraph posted on my channel. Here in this american society, NO Level of government has any rightful ability to regulate churches or taxing power over religious groups.
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago
The federal government has used the constitution as a door mat for many, many years. Art. 1 sec 8 lists what the congress can do, they have overstepped thier bounds a long time ago.
1836yall 2 years ago
The 2nd amd. states " the right of the people". Anywhere else in the constitution that would be considered an individaul right. The states can regulate, but not deprive the ownership of arms.
1836yall 2 years ago
It depends on the intent of the 2A. If the intent was a means of abolishing, then no, the state cannot regulate. Then we would all have muskets while they have m16's, .50 cal, tanks etc. Perhaps we are too far gone.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
With regards to government control, advocates of states rights are lost in the tail chasing of circular thinking.
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago
And yes ... the states DO have the right to limit the power of the federal government.
BUT that means they can PROTECT it's property owners FROM the fed, not restrain it's property owners (residents) further with regard to individual rights.
conspiracy777 2 years ago 2
Sovereignty Means being an Independent INDIVIDUAL, Not some member of any "state" Beehive!!
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago
The autosubtitle system seem to a Ron Paul supporter. At around 4:30 it transcribes 'talk radio' as 'Ron Paul Radio'.
Slug99 2 years ago
This theory of "states rights' should Never be construed as meaning government permission and privilege. The Bill of Rights pertain to the Freedoms and Liberties of individual citizens. Many of us thought you knew and understood this Basic concept.
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago 3
@TOWIFELGA it's not a theory every state has a right to govern itself. This is fundamental. The state of England cannot force the state of france to submit to it without breaking the french people and in turn would be growing it's own sovereign state in the process. Sovereignty comes with being a state. As long as states exist they are sovereign. They can delegate this away but it is innate.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
This means IM close to being anarchist. The only "law of the land" that should be considered as supreme is the TEN Commandments, NOT Judicial Dictate!
TOWIFELGA 2 years ago
We already have a right to health care ... it's called the right to life, liberty ...
I have the right to get healthcare. I DO NOT have the right to have everyone else PAY for it.
The state has no right to step in and subvert my right to life without due process.
The constitution is completely about individual rights and protecting us FROM government/s
It was written with the basic foundational belief that each person is sovereign and has the right to rule within their own property.
conspiracy777 2 years ago
@conspiracy777 exactly as opposed to the government being the sovereign or in other words the dictator of the law. The Government is supposed to rise from the people's wants and needs not the wants of the politicians for political gain. They grow the government even more from this making us suffer while they benefit from more control over our lives.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
@conspiracy777 and a continual increasing flow of funds through taxes via the emergent class disparity.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Here is what the Illinois state constitution says about this:
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
steve0281 2 years ago
Jack,
Your reasoning here has caught me off guard but I must say that I find no fault with it. That said, where does the ACLU get off on preventing religious meetings, etc. on government property that is not federal? They do it quite often and according to your apparently fautless logic I can see no reason why they should. Also, does that not mean that states have the right to curb speech, so long as what people are saying does not address a federal issue?
steve0281 2 years ago
The whole basis of the constitution is that it was written FOR the people, not for the states.
Think of it this way.
It is our "contract" with the government (all government) to protect US (we the people) FROM government, not so that the states would be protected to regulate us.
If a state or local government decided to suddenly build a fence around my town and declare that we will all now be muslim and all property seized, the fed can not step in and protect us because it's the states right?
conspiracy777 2 years ago
HUH?
You think the constitution gives the states rights to regulate RELIGION? Speech? Life? Liberty?
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
This is a protection of individual rights. Individual rights TRUMP ANY GOVERNMENT TYRANY.
You've obviously been reading the federalist papers, but you've read them backwards.
What you're saying here is that I have no constitutional rights. That the state can take them away from me.
They can seize my property and my life.
???
conspiracy777 2 years ago
The idea that I only have rights and protection from the federal government is asinine.
Yes, a person could move, but what if the state or local government signs a law saying you can't move?
I know it's all hypothetical philosophical, but do you see where it leads if taken to its end?
Take a step back and think about this.
conspiracy777 2 years ago
Thank you S.A.
PatriotEke 2 years ago
the 14th amendment needs to be repealed
btigtime2 2 years ago
This is a federalist system. If you don't like local/state laws, either get them changed or vote with your feet.
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
Jack I love you but I must disagree. The Bill of Rights are a list of rights that no level of government can deny. States rights are limited to the powers not mentioned in the US Constitution. Heath care is not mentioned in the Constitution so it is not subject to federal control. If a state wishes to provide health care to is citizens they can. Gun ownership is mentioned in the constitution and that means no state can restrict that right.
WSOR4025 2 years ago
The whole point of having a republic is so that each state can be a "laboratory" unto itself, and the states that prosper or enact sensible policy can serve as an example of what works to the other states in the union. If you believe in competition in a market of goods, then you must understand that it works in a market of ideas, too. Don't forget your right to vote with your feet, my friend. Incorporation doctrine was as destructive of these ends as anything in jurisprudential history.
immanent 2 years ago
@immanent Agreed, though this does not address collusion, the same kind of collusion the EU is going threw now. Voting with your feet is one thing, but what about the investment one has in a given state? Is one to lose hi/her investment in property in said state and move to another only to have the same thing happen there? True using federal power in this way does not set well, but we must then ask if living under a federal or state power is really logical at all, the Spooner argument.
anarchylogic 2 years ago
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
This means you have to be vocal in your state government as well as federal. Local, too. No one ever said being free was easy. You can't sit on your couch and expect not to get walked on, but relying on the central government to enforce your freedoms against your state is sloth that just invites trouble to all people in all states, IMO.
immanent 2 years ago
@immanent Again we find ourselves in agreement, but as if to prove my point I was just reading a story on the amount of money that will be spent by an incumbent politician, over $30M. Eternal vigilance is something we all should take more note of, yet when gvt steal tax money then forces parents to send their child to a gvt school and learn gvt text so kids know that they must accept theft from gvt as a way of life this is a problem. And now almost every kid I meet wants to work for gvt.
anarchylogic 2 years ago
@immanent prt2
Its almost as if every kid I meet is Ok with, and in fact, wants to be a furnace worker so long as their well paid and not put in the furnace
Police won't even stand up to their respective city councils
Additionally, we can't even get people to understand that if you work for: gvt, defense industry, most airlines, hospitals, banks, telecom, etc. That their jobs are to a large degree subsidized by theft
Vigilance means 70% unemployment until we produce again as a nation
anarchylogic 2 years ago
I concur.
WSOR4025 2 years ago
Every one send Jack a youtube email and request he have a pannel discussion on this matter with Gutzman, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Andrew Napalitano, Doug Casey, and Pat Buchanon.
I really like Jack Hunter, but on this issue I really think we need more discussion before we make any snap judgements.
Not only that a pannel like that would be great for learning for all of us.
Just a thought.
Still like you SA ^_^
anarchylogic 2 years ago
That would be brilliant anarchylogic...that's something I'd pay to see.
Golly, I wonder if Obama, the Constitutional scholar, would even have the first clue what they were talking about. :p
Amy31415 2 years ago
@ Amy31415
I say Jack should invite Mr. Obama to the discussion as well, I don't think he would show up, but I do think SA should make the invitation. Mr. Obama is a smart man, and I would be delighted to hear his responses along side Ron Paul's and Lew Rockwell's and Pat Buchanon, indeed it would be an educational experience. I wonder how it would go?
anarchylogic 2 years ago
@ anarchylogic
It would be the first time that we saw Obama in a philosophical rather than a political debate, and one specifically on the Constitution.
We *know* that these other guys know the Constitution, but we really don't know how much Obama knows about it, nor how he interprets it. (Aside from his actions thus far, anyways.)
Pretty sad, considering that he's the president.
Amy31415 2 years ago