The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

BillCA · October 13, 2008, 12:34 AM

Trigger,
This would have been a very good opportunity to show some thinking instead of emotional reaction.

I agree that the first argument should have been,

Any statute passed by congress which lies in opposition to the constitution, including the amendments, is null and void. Thus, such a statute has no force of law and attempts to enforce it are outside the authority of the government. It becomes, in essence, a crime committed by the government.

If, however, he indicates that a proper repeal of the amendment was performed, then there is a follow-up answer.

Should the 2nd amendment be wiped away, Congress and state legislatures would no longer have much reason to fear the people whom they are supposed to serve. As shown in the U.K., once people were disarmed, it took less than a year before it's legislative body proposed to cease trial-by-jury if the offense was punishiable by less than 4 years in prison. No doubt free speech would be abolished next here, along with warrants being required.

If a professor argues that the 2nd amendment only prohibits Congress, not the states, from regulating firearms, then we have even more fun.

The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, via the 14th Amendment is necesary only because of a single, questionable decision. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) held that the bill of rights limitations applied only to the federal government and not to the states. So between 1833 and 1868, when the 14th was ratified (actually longer than that) you could be arrested by local or state authorities for speaking your mind on a street corner. In fact, many people were so arrested, especially for unpopular ideas or sentiments.

It wasn't until the early 20th Century that "civil rights" were forced onto the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court.

Further, the decisions in Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) in Presser 116 U.S. 252 (1886), were built on the framework of Barron v Baltimore, saying that the 2nd Amendment only restricted Congress, not the states.

October 13, 2008, 12:34 AM	#42
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	Trigger, This would have been a very good opportunity to show some thinking instead of emotional reaction. I agree that the first argument should have been, Any statute passed by congress which lies in opposition to the constitution, including the amendments, is null and void. Thus, such a statute has no force of law and attempts to enforce it are outside the authority of the government. It becomes, in essence, a crime committed by the government. If, however, he indicates that a proper repeal of the amendment was performed, then there is a follow-up answer. Should the 2nd amendment be wiped away, Congress and state legislatures would no longer have much reason to fear the people whom they are supposed to serve. As shown in the U.K., once people were disarmed, it took less than a year before it's legislative body proposed to cease trial-by-jury if the offense was punishiable by less than 4 years in prison. No doubt free speech would be abolished next here, along with warrants being required. If a professor argues that the 2nd amendment only prohibits Congress, not the states, from regulating firearms, then we have even more fun. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, via the 14th Amendment is necesary only because of a single, questionable decision. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) held that the bill of rights limitations applied only to the federal government and not to the states. So between 1833 and 1868, when the 14th was ratified (actually longer than that) you could be arrested by local or state authorities for speaking your mind on a street corner. In fact, many people were so arrested, especially for unpopular ideas or sentiments. It wasn't until the early 20th Century that "civil rights" were forced onto the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court. Further, the decisions in Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) in Presser 116 U.S. 252 (1886), were built on the framework of Barron v Baltimore, saying that the 2nd Amendment only restricted Congress, not the states. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)