Reading the Second Amendment

[The Real Hawkeye]

A judge is far, far more than that. In the case of a guilty verdict, the judge determines how long a person will spend in jail. No one else does. And there are many judicial court actions that don't involve a jury. In these cases the judge makes all determinations. So I think your view of judges is a little simplistic.

As for jury nullification, you forget that a judge can override the determination of a jury if he feels that such determination is not consistent with the facts. The jury can NOT simply do whatever it wants to do.

While the judge can protect an accused from a bad jury, he cannot punish an accused whom the jury has acquitted, regardless of his finding that they did not follow the law or his instructions. When it comes to defending the citizen against the government, the jury's authority is superior to the judges. That's because the judge is an official of the State, while the jury represents the entirety of the people. The judge derives his authority from them, not the other way around.

 

[Graystar]

While the judge can protect an accused from a bad jury, he cannot punish an accused whom the jury has acquitted,...

True. But a judge can (and has) order a mistrial if he is convinced that the jury did not act in accordance with their responsibilities. And that includes a finding of not guilty that is based on anything other than a reasonable doubt.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

thank y'all...i have so many things i would like to contribute. i'm busy though...this is so cool. keep up the discourse, i'm learning... i'm not worthy!!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

True. But a judge can (and has) order a mistrial if he is convinced that the jury did not act in accordance with their responsibilities. And that includes a finding of not guilty that is based on anything other than a reasonable doubt.

The only thing a jury is required to inform the judge about their deliberation process is their conclusion regarding the ultimate question of guilt or non-guilt. They are not required to answer questions about the reasonableness of their doubt, or anything else. So long as no laws were violated, the deliberation room is sanctum sanctorum, as far as the judge is concerned.

 

[mnrivrat]

The jury can NOT simply do whatever it wants to do.

While this conversation is a bit off topic for the thread I will make one final statement .

Trial by jury is the right of all accused of a crime. Non-jury trials do exist, but not for criminal cases unless the jury trial is waved.

The Jury determines the guilt or innocence in a jury trial and only if they grossly error in respect to the law can the judge legaly nullify their decision. It rarely happens .

The judge may set the sentance (usualy within guidlines- he can't do whatever he wants either) and varify that legal procedure is being followed , but in a jury trial he has no power to determine guilt or innocence .

Therfore the prior statment : "The jury only determines if the facts of the case support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, then the judge judges that guilt with an appropriate sentence." , is not correct.

The judge does not "judge that guilt" , in a jury trial . His main job is to oversee legal procedure , so the word ,referee, applies pretty well I think.

 

[Graystar]

Therfore the prior statment : "The jury only determines if the facts of the case support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, then the judge judges that guilt with an appropriate sentence." , is not correct.

But that's exactly what you just described!

 

[Graystar]

So long as no laws were violed, the deliberation room is sanctum sanctorum, as far as the judge is concerned.

That is not correct.

http://www.defgen.state.vt.us/lawbook/ch35.htm

During jury deliberations in State v. Corey{5} a juror asked the sheriff to pace off a distance of 92 feet - the distance from which the defendant allegedly shot the victim. The trial judge ordered a mistrial sua sponte, and refused to revise his ruling even after the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the mistrial ruling, rejecting the defendant's argument that cautionary instructions would have been good enough.

 

[Graystar]

But back to the subject at hand...

Nonsense! "People" is a plural reference to individual human beings. You cannot get around the fact that virtually no one at the time of the Amendment's ratification, including its framers, understood the word "people" to mean an amorphous conglomerate, to the exclusion of individuals acting alone.

That "fact" is a belief you have that simply has no basis. I don't remember reading about 4 million people attending the Philadelphia Convention and having a hand in writing "We the People..." This has always been a country of representation. The US Constitution was just barely ratified, and in several states was accepted by the slimmest of margins. Not every individual was for ratification. Yet every individual is part of “the people.” Obviously, the concept of “the people” is much more than just an amorphous conglomerate. The people are defined by their representation and laws. That is how the voice of the people is heard, and the will of the people is executed.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

But back to the subject at hand...

That "fact" is a belief you have that simply has no basis. I don't remember reading about 4 million people attending the Philadelphia Convention and having a hand in writing "We the People..." This has always been a country of representation. The US Constitution was just barely ratified, and in several states was accepted by the slimmest of margins. Not every individual was for ratification. Yet every individual is part of “the people.” Obviously, the concept of “the people” is much more than just an amorphous conglomerate. The people are defined by their representation and laws. That is how the voice of the people is heard, and the will of the people is executed.

In choosing to live in a representative republic, all the people (at least implicitly) agree to all the rules, one of which is that in certain instances the majority gets to determine policy, and the rest must "bow to that majority," i.e., the minority, in agreeing to continue their citizenship in our nation, bend their will, at least implicitly, to that of the majority. So it is indeed accurate to refer to majority rule as implicitly the expressed will of all the people. Likewise, if our elected and/or duly appointed government officials should reach a decision, it is assumed to reflect the will of the majority of those they represent, and therefore also (if only implicitly) of the whole. If it does not, our system provides various processes by which the official may be removed, that is to say, all government officials are ultimately accountable to the will of the people. The failure of the majority to act on which, however, implies consent of the majority and implicitly, for reasons stated supra, of the whole.

Representative government doesn't mean, however, that "the people" is just a phrase we use, as in the former Soviet Union, to disingenuously describe the acts of the government. It actually means that those acts, so long as they are allowed by the people to stand, authentically represent the will of the people as a whole, as it is the people as a whole wherein the source of all sovereignty and authority lies under our system of government. So, to state that "the people possess the right to do X,Y and Z" is not a mere metaphor for the government's power to do those things. It means that this right concretely and fundamentally belongs to all the people, i.e., to each individual person, and to the extent that government officials also possess said right, it is due to the fact that the people in their entirety have extended it to them for a specific governmental purpose.

 

[hugh damright]

diagram grammatical variant clause ...

And as I said in my first post here, if a person goes beyond just the one sentence that is the Second Amendment, and takes into account the requests for the Amendment, then I don't think he can so easily construe the primary object to be individual self-defense. Please, take the requests for the Second Amendment and break them down for us (I provided Virginia's request in my first post here).

Is it possible that the capitalized S in State could refer to the new United States?

I think not. The reason the States were requesting the original amendments, the Bill of Rights, was to clarify that the US is not a State. The US is not a free State. A free State is empowered by the majority, like a popular vote ... the US Constitution creates a different form of government.

And the first three words of the preamble to the constitution refers to whom???

The Constitution begins "We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution". Who were the people that established and ordained the Constitution? Was it an individual? Was it the people of the whole US in a "popular vote"? Or was it the States, the people as thirteen sovereignties?

It is my understanding ... I believe it was expressed in the New York Ratification Convention, that the US Constitution would have failed a popular vote.

The US isn't 50 corporate people (States) represented in the federal Government.

From Federalist #39:

"it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

 

[carebear]

But I think my point was that it is one thing to say that the people shall not be disarmed, and another to say that no person shall be disarmed. We still see the proper grammar in formal use, for instance a sign will say "occupancy by x number of persons is unlawful", but in modern casual use we would speak of how many people were in the room. There's no need for anyone to get uppity, all you have to do is hit a couple dictionaries and see what they say about the words "people" and "persons" and how their use has changed over time.

This is from your 2nd post and constitutes your clarification of your first post. In it you make no mention of

And as I said in my first post here, if a person goes beyond just the one sentence that is the Second Amendment, and takes into account the requests for the Amendment, then I don't think he can so easily construe the primary object to be individual self-defense. Please, take the requests for the Second Amendment and break them down for us (I provided Virginia's request in my first post here).

Now you are changing your stated intent to attempt to make your position more defensible AND introducing a strawman. I, and Hawkeye and others are also not claiming the 2nd has

...the primary object to be individual self-defense

but rather that it does in definition and intent reference an inalienable individual right to keep and bear arms with only one of many reasons (its necessity for the existence of an effective non-governmental militia) actually stated.

 

[hugh damright]

My mistake ... in drafting my first post, I included Virginia's request for the Second Amendment, but I edited it out and instead included Virginia's Amendment at the time. I thought it was a better example, because it doesn't even have a clause about the right of the people, it's purely about the collective. I'll tell you what, I'll copy it here again, and then I'll also copy Virginia's request for the Second Amendment, and we'll see if anybody can break them down for us ... first Virginia's original amendment:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

and Virginia's request for the Second Amendment:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

And no, I am not introducing a strawman ... you guys keep saying that the Second Amendment regards the individual RKBA, so I assume you are talking about the individual right to self defense, a right to shoot burglars ... or are we now saying that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting??

The thing is, what we seem to keep missing here, is that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms against government to force them to your individual will. But in a free State, there is a collective right of the people to do just that, to take over their government, to alter or to abolish it. That is what makes a free State different from a monarchy. I think we had the individual rights under King George ... but maybe I'm confused about what personal rights you guys are talking about.

 

[hugh damright]

Let me put it this way, how do we get from the Virginia Amendment ...

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

to this Statement by Kates ...

It is somewhat misleading, however, to see the Second Amendment as a right to have arms for collective defense against tyanny and foreign enemies. The Amendment's central theme was what our Founding Fathers saw as the basic human right to possess arms for individual self-defense.

What Kates is saying is that it would be misleading to view the Second Amendment as declaring a principle of free government, and that it must be viewed as declaring a principle of libertarianism. It sounds to me like somebody doesn't believe in free government or free States, and so he has to construe the Second Amendment to represent what he happens to believe in. I don't mean to say that Kates lacks integrity or is intellectually dishonest, I just mean to say that ... I don't think that he believes in free States, so instead of viewing the Second Amendment as regarding the security of a free State, he construes it to regard something else, the basic human right.

And let me be clear, I believe in the basic human right, but I do not believe that the Second Amendment or Federal government are delegated jurisiction over our basic human rights, I believe such powers are reserved to the States or to the people. It is not that I don't believe in the individual right ... I think it is people like Kates who do not believe in the political right.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And no, I am not introducing a strawman ... you guys keep saying that the Second Amendment regards the individual RKBA, so I assume you are talking about the individual right to self defense, a right to shoot burglars ... or are we now saying that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting??

We are only insisting that the Second Amendment means what it clearly says, i.e., that the right which shall not be infringed is the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right belongs to the people (regardless of the Second Amendment, as clearly implied in the Amendment itself), as contrasted with belonging to any level of state or government.

The purpose of said prohibition (i.e., against infringing on this right) was primarily to preserve the existence of free States. Absent civilians keeping and bearing their personal weapons, militias cannot exist, and the Second Amendment seems to express the point of view that well regulated ones of those are essential to the continued existence of free States, which continued existence the framers thought was a good thing.

We observe that a well regulated militia is not possible without at least the potential for a general militia, from which the well regulated one would derive its members in times of crisis. General militias require armed civilians to populate them, as do well regulated ones, and those civilians are expected to be armed with their own weapons with which, it is assumed, they would possess at least a basic familiarity, or else they cannot, by definition, serve in any militia, least of all a well regulated one.

The issue of individual self defense is one at Common Law, and has little relation to the Second Amendment, which only guarantees that the right of each individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, with regard to self defense, it is a good thing that one's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but individual self defense is not the central purpose of the Second Amendment. If Kates asserts something contrary, then on this point alone I, for one, agree with you that he is mistaken.

 

[mnrivrat]

Graystar wrote :

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnrivrat
Therfore the prior statment : "The jury only determines if the facts of the case support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, then the judge judges that guilt with an appropriate sentence." , is not correct.

But that's exactly what you just described!

What I said :

The Jury determines the guilt or innocence in a jury trial and only if they grossly error in respect to the law can the judge legaly nullify their decision.

What I discribed is plainly different - what you have the judge doing in your statement is "judging that guilt" . He does no such thing - judging guilt is as I stated, the determination of the jury . Passing sentence is a seperate issue.

 

[hugh damright]

We are only insisting that the Second Amendment means what it clearly says, i.e., that the right which shall not be infringed is the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right belongs to the people (regardless of the Second Amendment, as clearly implied in the Amendment itself), as contrasted with belonging to any level of state or government.

And I am only insisting that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed BY CONGRESS". It might not be so clear at first glance, it might take a person a lot of work to conceive it, but I think it is the proper construction and consistent with constitutional law.

And what do you mean that the militia belongs to the people and not the State or government? I think we agree that militia is of/by/for the people, a way for the people to check the government, because that is the principle of free government, the political right. But I guess I don't see where the States fit into your view of militia. And please understand, when I say "State", I am not talking about the Governor or the State Legislature, I am talking about the people of a State as a collective, as a political body. It is my assertion that only a State level militia could ensure a free State.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Some folks view the US BOR as regarding our basic human rights, which to me is a view were our basic human rights are under federal jurisdiction or "federalized". And I believe that would undo the US Constitution and our form of government, reconstructing our limited federal government into a national government. I don't think it's proper to use the BOR to further empower the US when the intent was just the opposite - to limit the delegated US powers. In the case of the Second Amendment, I do not think the intent was to delegate the US jursdiction over all aspects of our gun rights, I think they were only delegated some power over the militia, and the Second Amendment was intended to limit that little bit of jurisdiction.

I recently learned that the original amendments are ordered to match the order in the Constitution of the powers they address. There were twelve original amendments proposed to the States for ratification, and the first (which failed) regarded representation i.e. Article One:Section Two. And the second (which failed) regarded compensation i.e. Article One:Section Six. And the next four, which passed and became our First-Fourth Amendments, fit in with the restraints on Congress found in Article One:Section Nine.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Some people ridicule the notion that the US Bill of Rights can be seen as regarding States' rights, so I would like to offer something from our history which makes it easier to conceive of what I am talking about. It is a story about free States and secession, when in the 1860's some States decided to exercise their right to alter or to abolish their government, and Maryland was making it's collective mind up. The way I understand it, Maryland was leaning towards secession, so Lincoln sent in the troops: presses that called for secession were shut down and others left operating, people were jailed for peaceful assembly (if I am not mistaken it was tens of thousands of people), habeus corpus was suspended, freely elected representatives were replaced with federal puppets ... in the end, Maryland's free government was taken away. They wanted to secede and didn't even know it, because all the things that were necessary to their free government were taken from them. And if you can put yourself in the position of Maryland, where the federal government is taking over all your aspects of free government, then perhaps you can conceive of how the US Bill of Rights was intended by the States to prevent such a thing, how it was intended to be a "Bill of States' Rights".

 

[Carl N. Brown]

points

Actually only legal immigrants choose to live in this democratic
constitutional republic, while most of the native-born and the
illegal immigrants would probably not be able to pass the
naturalization test on the constitution and American history.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, the reason of most importance to the federal
government is that it is also a good way to support a militia.
But that is not the only reason.

The enumerationof certain rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

 

[ctdonath]

The core flaw in your argument is revealed here:

I think my point was that it is one thing to say that the people shall not be disarmed, and another to say that no person shall be disarmed.

You're falling for a classic Leftist delusion: that the collective is one thing, and the individuals a separate inferior.

The people, as a collective, IS the sum total of individuals. Granting/recognizing rights of the collective yet denying them to individuals is a self-undermining contradiction. If you deny individuals rights, the collective is denied rights. There is no RKBA for the state without RKBA for the individuals composing it. If you disarm each individual, then the state is disarmed.

(Side note: SCOTUS has ruled that extreme instances, such as violent felons and certified insane, can be denied rights. Before taking on the extreme cases, we must establish the normal cases - upstanding law-abiding competent adults.)

The Founding Fathers recognized this: in a government of the people, the people is the government - there is no false dichotomy wherein the government may be armed yet the people not. Ideally, defense of the state comes exclusively from the people being armed and acting in the security of the state ... hence the 2nd Amendment's wording, which may be paraphrased as "to keep the state secure, the people must be able to arm themselves".

This is not just a theory. The same Founding Fathers shortly thereafter passed the Militia Act of 1792, which REQUIRED all able-bodied males be armed with a specified minimum of weaponry (it also required the government take steps to train and organize them). Thus, it is unquestionable that the 2nd Amendment was intended to permit (even recognize as inalienable) INDIVIDUALS the right to arm themselves: they wrote the 2nd Amendment, then went so far as to legislate a change from permission to requiring self-armament.

Current US code defines every able-bodied male 17-45 as a militia member. Refining components of the law expand the definition, not reduce/limit it.

Miller then began with the presumption that the defendant was part of the militia, then considered whether the weapon in question was useful for milita use. Lacking proof either way, the case was remanded to determine militia usefulness. (That Miller was apparently dead terminated that case.)

That your theory leads to the conclusion that the USA consists of 50 "people" is a red flag indicating something is very wrong with the theory. I can "prove" - in many ways - that 1=2, but that a conclusion is 1=2 indicates that there is something terribly wrong with the theory, i.e.: a preposterous conclusion to a line of reasoning indicates there is something very wrong with the line of reasoning.

So...
- The Founding Fathers used the term "people", indicating the collection of individuals, many times.
- There is nothing indicating that the term "people" changes definition dramatically in short order within the same section of the Constitution, or even across the whole Constitution.
- The "people" means a collection of individuals, each having that right.
- The theory that the collective has a right but individuals do not is as absurd as a mathematical theory proving 1=2; such an outcome indicates error, and the reasoning must not be continued beyond that.
- The Founding Fathers not only recognized the RKBA, but shortly thereafter required it of all militia members.
- US Code currently defines militia members as, at minimum, able-bodied males 17-45.
- Miller recognized an armed citizen as a given, questioning only whether certain arms were NOT militia-suitable, indicating: militia-suitable arms are protected for RKBA.
- At the time, commas and capitalization tended to be modified fairly freely, varying among various legitimate copies of the BoR. The Founding Fathers were more interested in preserving liberty for all individuals than getting grammar exactly right.

 

[ctdonath]

I am only insisting that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed BY CONGRESS".

The Bill Of Rights recognizes natural rights - rights which pre-exist outside any manifestation of government. As such, it is absurd to think that those rights do not apply to each state government, each city government, etc. The Constitution is the highest law of the USA, requiring all other law within its jurisdiction submit to. That the BoR is plainly for the people, the 2nd Amendment must obviously apply to the people. "We the people of these United States..." is not the states talking. That the USA consists of 50 people is absurd.

The Constitution recognizes the states as collections of people. The Constitution serves the people THRU the states, defining certain federal powers and ordering the federal government to deal with the people as collectives forming states (it took a Constitutional amendment to let the feds tax the people directly.) However, the BoR was added to ensure that certain INDIVIDUAL rights would be protected from the top down. The BoR means nothing if it applies only to the states as 50 entitites, which can in turn transgress the natural rights of the people therein.

 

[cosine]

Wow! This is pretty amazing. This thread has logically and I believe conclusively proven by now that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. (Great arguments to prove that is so, btw) It has taken a side trail into the workings of the judge and jury during a trial, comes back on topic, and yet continues to grow, into five pages and dare I say, beyond.

 

[Wiley]

This has been good debate. My step-father, who took great delight in arguing any subject, either side, would have enjoyed it. My mother hated it when he would debate her around in a circle to agreing with him.

Everyone has, with minor exceptions, has lived up to 'The Highroad'. I hope Mr. damright has had as much fun as I.

In summary, all I can say is: I'M RIGHT. YOU'RE WRONG! SO THERE.

 

[hugh damright]

The Bill Of Rights recognizes natural rights - rights which pre-exist outside any manifestation of government. As such, it is absurd to think that those rights do not apply to each state government, each city government, etc

I think the way it works is that a Constitution frames a government and a Bill of Rights limits THAT government. And I have come to see the BoR as regarding the natural collective right of a people to govern themselves i.e. free government.

Here is a SCOTUS reference:

Presser v Illinois - "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to ... the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.'"

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The BoR means nothing if it applies only to the states as 50 entitites, which can in turn transgress the natural rights of the people therein.

Miller v Texas - "it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

There is no RKBA for the state without RKBA for the individuals composing it. If you disarm each individual, then the state is disarmed. (Side note: SCOTUS has ruled that extreme instances, such as violent felons and certified insane, can be denied rights. Before taking on the extreme cases, we must establish the normal cases - upstanding law-abiding competent adults.)

That sounds right to me. Generally speaking, if a State disarms a person, under due process of law, then that is an intrastate matter. But if a State tries to disarm itself, to disarm the people, then ... Second Amendment or not, the US has a duty to say "no".

Presser v Illinois -"the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

 

[Harve Curry]

Yes it's a natural right. I said words to that effect in a previous post. When you understand that, the 2nd Amendment becomes plainly defined.

May I recommend that book again, The Second Amendment Primer, by Les Adams, Palladium Press. Mr. Adams is a lawyer who didn't believe the 2nd Amendment meant an individual right to keep and bear arms. He set out to prove this point. By reading history of what was available to the founding fathers, he studied what they read, he proved the opposite to himself.

Thanks for starting this H.damright, it's been a good thread.

 

[Gordon Fink]

[P]erhaps you can conceive of how the US Bill of Rights … was intended to be a “Bill of States’ Rights”.

Oh! Now I see where you are coming from. You would re-fight the Civil War, because you have neglected to read Article VI.

“This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”​

See any contradiction there?

~G. Fink

 

[hugh damright]

Yes, I do see a contradiction. The law of the land is Tenth Amendment federalism - the separation of State and Federal powers ... yet you seem to think that the US has jurisdiction over our fundamental natural rights.

Let me ask you something ... if there was no US BOR, do you figure that the US would still have jurisdiction over all our rights, or do you think that it is the BOR which bestows this unlimited jurisdiction upon our limited federal government?