SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution
Loading...
Link to this comment:
Top Comments
All Comments (235)
-
Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
-
2A: "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."
Note this doesn't say "the federal government shall not infringe."
-
Federal law DOES trump state law - as long as the Federal law is constitutional. It is laid out clearly in the supremacy clause.
Look at the final part of the Supremacy clause: "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." This clearly SUBORDINATES all state constitutions, laws, etc, to the Constitution (and federal law that is itself in compliance with the Constitution - see the full supremacy clause).
-
@CleanUpCongress, believe it or not, this subject is not controversial among historians. It is little discussed or known outside of that circle but the original intent of the US BOR was to apply ONLY against the Federal Government. Google the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights. That lays it out. However, there is other supporting evidence from convention debates and more. There is quite a bit on google if you dig for it. Make sure to find reputable sources.
-
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.
-
@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 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 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 apparently Jack Hunter doesn't understand its purpose of recognizing unalienable individual rights. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are not "state rights". Jack is a total idiot.
6:31
SA@TAC - Is Opposing Gun Control 'Idiotic?'by southernavenger5,763 views- 5:34
SA@TAC - Nullify Obamacareby southernavenger8,437 views
- 5:43
SA@TAC - Shame on Everyone for Obamacareby southernavenger12,051 views
- 5:38
SA@TAC - Extremism in the Defense of Libertyby southernavenger4,686 views
- 5:19
SA@TAC - Why 'The Hurt Locker' Hurtsby southernavenger8,487 views
- 5:18
Do Terrorists Hate Freedom? by the Southern Avengerby southernavenger7,623 views
- 5:43
SA@TAC - Sarah Palin's Bad Teaby southernavenger11,454 views
- 0:48
The Southern Avenger - Mark Levin Doesn't Like the Southern Avengerby southernavenger9,987 views
- 6:14
SA@TAC - Ron Paul's Conservative Foreign Policyby southernavenger9,316 views
- 6:50
SA@TAC - The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn't 'Conservative'by southernavenger14,937 views
- 9:37
Glenn Beck - Supreme Court Takes Chicago Gun Ban Case - September 30, 2009by BuckeyeFirearms4,120 views
- 5:46
SA@TAC - Ron Paul Peopleby southernavenger9,638 views
- 5:20
SA@TAC - Taking the 'Neo' Out of 'Conservative'by southernavenger8,787 views
- 5:47
SA@TAC - Terrorism, Liberal and Conservativeby southernavenger5,620 views
- 5:17
SA@TAC - Israel, the World and Usby southernavenger7,486 views
- 5:16
Fox news interviews Alan Gura and Dennis Henigan (Mcdonald Vs Chicago)by fargley0012,923 views
- 6:33
SA@TAC - Interview with Debra Medinaby southernavenger5,313 views
- 1:03
Chicago Gun Banby DJJOSHR4,471 views
- 8:21
What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rightsby BillWhittleChannel85,296 views
- 5:54
SA@TAC - Slandering Secessionby southernavenger6,747 views
@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
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