nhhillbilly
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2003
- Messages
- 544
NH State Constitution stated is 2-A (The Bearing of Arms.) All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Dred Scott was before the Civil War, and slavery was constitutional at that time. It would have been very difficult to interpret the constitution in any rational way where that decision came out different.Jim Cruikshank could be, worst, second. Remember Dred Scott?
If I had been a state legislator during the pre-BOR period, I would have most certainly protected my rights. My rights, however I defined them, were already recognized and protected to the extent I thought necessary by my sovereign state's constitution and laws.Wouldn't you want to protect your rights too?
My rights, however I defined them, were already recognized and protected to the extent I thought necessary by my sovereign state's constitution and laws.
It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this Constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.
What would you expect from a Federalist elitist? Madison was against the Bill of Rights until political expediency forced him to pledge his support to win election to Congress. Madison does deserves credit for being an astute politician; he could not stop the Bill of Rights, but taking control of the pen allowed him to frame the debate to his advantage.Except in cases where they weren't, as even Madison pointed out. Seems he wanted to cover such state defects with the BoR.
He's unquestionably patriotic: awarded a Bronze Star and DSC in Vietnam, I believe. There he would have had many opportunities to see ordinary people die because they could not defend themselves against superior force. Mordue is also unquestionably a Clinton appointment to the federal judiciary and obviously not inclined to support the right of ordinary people to have the means to defend themselves or to own firearms. Sometimes I've wondered what goes on in his head to reconcile those polar positions. I know that other people do it too but I've never been able to reconstruct the internal dialogue in any way that satisfies me.
Example: The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If it did not also apply to the states, then a state could forbid Catholic Churches in their state, or Jews. This is clearly not the case, nor was it the intent of the Founders.
Encyclopædia Britannica
The Puritan Congregational Church remained the established church (of Massachusetts) until an amendment to the state constitution was passed in 1833.
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 - Article III
... the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
...And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
If it did not also apply to the states, then a state could forbid Catholic Churches in their state, or Jews. This is clearly not the case, nor was it the intent of the Founders. The Constitution applies to all the states as well as the Federal Government.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.
ARTICLE THE FOURTEENTH.
No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press
The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. Barron v. The City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 250; Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, id. 551; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 id. 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 id. 90; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 479; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 id. 321; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 id. 557.
This seems to be one of those areas where the two govts are supposed to jealously guard each other - for the people's benefit.