So...using this logic, fighting a state law because its 'unconstitutional' would be frivolous since, unless I misunderstood, states can make laws that infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That is not just a slippery slope, but a damned steep one.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Gruss Gott<[email protected]> wrote: > >> RoMunn wrote: >> SCOTUS will rule on whether federal law trumps state law, but I think they >> will say that Consitutional rights can't be abridged by state law. > > Dude, you're not getting it: the Constitution grants rights to "the > people", not individuals. > > In other words, it's the *federal government* that's constrained by > the Constitution NOT the states. > > For example: > > * Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, SCOTUS held that the Bill of Rights > (first 10 amendments of the Constitution) applied only to the federal > government NOT the state government > > * United States v. Cruikshank, 1875, SCOTUS ruled that the first > amendment "was not intended to limit the powers of the State > governments in respect to their own citizens", and that the second > amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the > national government." > > The states are NOT constrained by the Constitution!! > > But obviously that doesn't feel right does it? > > So came the concept of "selective incorporation" to bind the states to > the Bill of Rights: > > * Gitlow v. New York, 1925, SCOTUS ruled that the first amendment is, > "among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the > due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the > states" > > Which started "selective incorporation" of the Bill of Rights to state law. > > What hasn't yet been incorporated is the the second amendment - guns. > > If SCOTUS rules to incorporate - that ALL states are constrained by > the 2nd amendment - they'll be ruling to constrain states, i.e. > state's rights, with the 2nd. > > SUMMMARY > If we only want justices to rule by the letter of the constitution, > then state gun bans are just fine. > > If we want to alter the original intent of the constitution and > legislate from the bench then they'll incorporate. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:298178 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
