The Amendments don't "grant" individual rights. The framers and the state legislatures would have said that the rights come from God and are inalienable. The Amendments "restrain" the feds from restricting these rights. Remember that many thought that the Amendments were unnecessary. It shouldn't be necessary, so their argument went, to spell out these restrictions to federal powers because the Constitution that we just wrote does not give the feds the rights to create those restrictions in the first place.

For those here that are still using the "but the Amendments apply to the state" argument, pls go back and reread how the framers and state legislatures interpreted the 1st Amendment. Many of the states had churches. They interpreted "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" as protecting their state religions from federal meddling. What could possibly make it more clear that they did not perceive the "unnecessary" Amendments as restricting the states.

Sure, the states were doing things that we look back now at with dismay. Slavery and racial discrimination being prob top of the list. But when discussing the philosophical underpinnings of our laws, it just muddies the water to get into "good" and "bad".

"But if the states were free to discriminate, some states would and that would be bad". Yes, it would. They'd have gotten with the program eventually tho. It was our culture, acting thru the government, that stopped that shit, not the government acting thru us. Freedom means the freedom to be a shithead. But if a person truly wants freedom, they're just going to have to accept that some will use that freedom to do things they disagree with. Like be a racist, buy a gas guzzler, and whatever.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

Fixed it for ya. Do you live in one of those liberal states?

So in your view, states could very well ban both carrying and owning guns altogether?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

On the other hand:


For instance, in Vermont you apparently don't even require a permit to conceal-carry. Does reciprocity then allow every Vermont resident to conceal-carry in every other state?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Does reciprocity then allow every Vermont resident to conceal-carry in every other state?

Neither in practice nor in theory.

No state recognizes permit-less carry from another state. Reciprocity is a non sequitur in those cases.

Idaho, for example, allows concealed carry without a permit. However, if an Idaho resident wants to carry concealed in another state that has reciprocity with Idaho, he needs to acquire an Idaho concealed carry permit.

And still, NJ does not allow it's residents or the residents of other states to carry, either openly or concealed.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The Amendments didn't "guarantee" personal rights, the Amendments were originally intended only to prevent the Feds from restricting personal rights. So that's all consistent.

The problem starts when we include the fact that SCOTUS via "Incorporation" I think it was, decided that the Amendments applied to the states too. This was just one more federal power-grab. So now the Feds have the responsibility to enforce the Amendments, the interpretations of which change on a regular basis, upon the states. So there are these constant struggles between what the citizens of that state want, and what the feds are trying to enforce. As in, the citizens of one state say they don't want people driving thru their state with a gun in their lap, and the feds say "too bad, suck it up". The result is the feds forcing Amendment related issues down the throat of the residents of a state, an idea that is at odds with the founding documents.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

Pretty much, yes.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I don't know about anything else, but this is a fascinatingly adult conversation. I'm mightily impressed by the tenor, so far.

And here I was just mildly trolling to kick things off. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution absolutely establishes and protects individual right. God did not grant the right to bear arms.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That's not all they do. They identify the Rights and say they cannot be infringed. They are specific in that way. They do not just say, "Government shall not infringe upon any individual rights." They specifically identify the Right. See, e.g., the 4th:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Right there - the Right to be secure in person, home, etc. is established by the 4th.

I'm still not sure what you are saying here. The Amendments apply to the state. Just look at the 4th. How can you possibly claim the 4th Amendment does not apply to the states?

Look at the 12th Amendment - it specifically directs the states how to conduct federal elections.

Look at the 14th - "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction[/url] the equal protection of the laws."

Look at the 15th - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged[/url] by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Need I go on?


You are joking, right? You think the Civil Rights Movement would have changed the culture of the US without the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

You think we would have had soldiers of color rise to the level of Chief of Staff if the Army hadn't forced integration?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

First, I'm confused what concealed carry and abortion have in common. Second, what evidence can you provide to support your claims that states are making it nearly impossible to lawfully have an abortion?

States could not ban carrying/owning under current interpretation of the Amendments.

States could ban carrying/owning under accurate interpretation of the Amendments. This allows the voters in each state to run their state their way, w/o their "freedom" being denied by the feds, which reallyl means "out of state" voters. If they didn't like the laws of their state, they'd vote with their feet and head to a state more to their liking.

It would not take long for states with laws that are anathema to reasonably bright folks, would find themselves low on same.

Freedom isn't just for you and like minded types. Freedom has to also be for folks with various repellent worldviews. Folks need to be free to be shitheads. If Missouri decides to enact racist laws, for example, they can expect to sow a whirlwind of outrage and all sorts of economic fallout.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

How on earth can you come to that conclusion, given the express language of the 14th Amendment:

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction[/url] the equal protection of the laws.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I think it's a fair comparison or analogy but I too have the same question about what states have made it nearly impossible to get an abortion and how so?

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

JSA, you're missing the distinction between the original interpretation of the Amendments and the later interpretations as the feds strove to increase their power. My points have been mostly about the original interpretation of the Amendments. That is to say, the Founding Fathers that debated them, and the state legislatures that approved them. But that only applies to the original 10 Amendments.

I'm not in a debate re. the 12th, 14 and 15th Amendment because the people I'm talking about, the people who actually agreed to the language of the documents that would rule us, were all out of office by the time the later Amendments came along.

You say the 4th applies to the States. I note that there's nothing in it that actually says that it does. Just because modern interpretation chooses to apply the Amendment to the states, doesn't add the language. I also mentioned twice now how the 1st Amendment example was so narrowly interpreted that instead of prohibiting state religion, it was perceived as protecting state religion from federal meddling.

I just did some quick reading on the history behind the 4th Amendment. I wanted to better understand what the Founding Fathers and the state legislatures would have been thinking about when they wrote, debated, and approved the 4th Amendment. Here's some. http://www.floridalawreview.com/.../Steinberg_BOOK2.pdf

Lots of talk about colonist aggravation re. excesses of the Crown, lots of talk of Brit Common Law on the issue, which was also oriented on the Crown, zero talk about concerns re. excesses the might be committed by the States.

Consider this argument. The Founding Fathers were pretty desperate to get the Constitution passed by the State legislatures, each of which was predictably jealous of it's own power, state authority. So the founding fathers had to be terribly careful with any passage in the Constitution and Amendments that could be seen as usurping State authority. In that context, one is not going to write a passage that constrains state authority, by today's standards, an appropriate constraint, and somehow neglect to write "this applies to the states too".

Re. civil rights. Not joking. Government is our bitch, not the reverse. Laws are a reflection of what the people want. Laws don't change our values. The civil rights laws were in response to what the people wanted, sure not all the people, but enough of the people that the politicians saw the writing on the wall. Had the civil rights laws never been enacted, the changes would have been less homogeneous. The changes would have caught on in some states faster than other states. But maybe the changes would have been more elegantly done, instead of the hamhanded federal approach of reversing racism by instituting racist policies. It's impossible to know how our breathtaking reversal of the 100k(?) year old tradition of racism might have otherwise played out.

One this is for sure tho, however clumsily, government reflects OUR values, not we, it. One does not change the basic values of people by simply creating a law. That's silly.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

I disagree. The 3rd Amendment prohibits quartering of soldiers during peacetime, which also applied to state militias.

The 6th Amendment requirement of speedy trial specifically applies to "the State and district wherein the crime has been committed."

The 10th Amendment specifically states that all powers not reserved by the United States belong to the States. How can you read that as not applying to the States???


Absolutely not true. There was rioting by whites over the proposal passage of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

Here: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/...-rights-act-of-1964/

Public opinion quite frequently follows legislative action. When an action is outlawed, over time, perceptions of that action change. Had the anti-segregation laws never gone into effect, generations of Americans would have grown up never being exposed to people of other colors.


I think you need to review your history. Forced integration in schools changed perceptions of young children. Force integration in the military changed the perceptions of service members.

Gen Xers grew up in a time where same-sex marriage was illegal. You don't think the illegality of SSM affects one's perception of same-sex couples? Now, a generation of young kids are growing up having never known a time when SSM was outlawed. That absolutely will shape perception of same-sex couples.

I am not claiming that legislation always drives public perception. Not at all. But, if you think public perception always drives legislation, you are completely wrong.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

We're not going to agree, so we might as well give up.

We're kind of talking past each other on a lot of this. You say "the Amendments apply to the states" and you mention amendments that include the word "states". But my point is that the constraints in those Amendments don't apply to the states. Those are different ideas.

The context for the writing of the Constitution and the Amendments, the debates before a finished product was sent to the states, the writings in support of the documents...writing designed to influence the state legislatures, debates in those legislatures, and finally approval in those legislatures, was a context of creating a carefully limited Federal Government. The states were assured that the federal government would have authority in only a few areas. Everyone worried that this new experiment with a representative government would just become one more oppressive central government.

It was all about carefully restraining the central government. It was never ever, not for one second, about making a federal government strong enough that it could force it's own whims down the throats of the voters of one of the sovereign states. Philosophically, the first 10 Amendments are entirely about restraining the federal government. If anyone, during the approval debates, had said, using the 3rd Amendment as an example "if we agree to this compact, we give this new federal government the authority to tell us, the state of <pick one> "Even if your voters are agreeable to the idea, you are not allowed to quarter state militia private homes", that would have been enough to sink the whole thing. The representatives of the Continental Congress were running around to all the state legislatures working over-time to assure them that the documents that they'd written "carefully constrained federal power. The federal government would only have authority in those areas explicitly granted it."

If one doesn't understand the context within which our founding docs were written, then it's easy to misunderstand passages.

Re. what came first, cultural changes or laws and policies. Sure, laws can create conditions which have some impact on cultural views. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a representative government that creates laws and policies in rough accordance with popular wishes. The fact that there was rioting when the civil rights legislation passed is meaningless. No one suggested that there was universal cultural acceptance. Of course some folks got bent out of shape. You going to assert that the civil rights legislation was at odds with majority opinion? That Congress supported the measures full knowing that they'd lose their jobs as a result? When have our representatives ever been so selfless?

You mentioned bussing. There a lot of evidence that bussing changed values on racism? My recollection is that mostly it just pissed people off.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

FWIW, this has been a very good and informative exchange.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Yes, they do. I have already explained this and given examples.

3rd Amendment - Prohibits forced housing of soldiers in peace time. Applies to state militias.

6th Amendment - Speedy trial applies to state courts.

I struggle to see how you can read the plan language of the Amendments and not see this.




You are looking at it improperly. The intent of the Bill of Rights was to ensure no government -- at any level -- could infringe upon individual rights. Yes, the Constitution was set up to provide sovereignty to the states. But, more important than that was the guarantee that individual rights could not be trampled by any form of government.


With all due respect, while the context certainly matters, you cannot ignore the plain language of the document itself.


Really? Is that how we got ObamaCare???

Plus, as I mentioned before (and provided a link), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wildly unpopular.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was absolutely, unequivocally, at odds with majority opinion. I provided you a link showing that.


When did I mention busing?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Talk about printing...


...and her weapon(s) are barely concealed at all.