[quote] pushharder wrote:
Incorrect. The states actually are entitled to this – with the consent of Congress.
[/quote]
No, it was correct. It’s not an entitlement if you have to be granted authorization. You are forbidden until some higher authority says you are no longer forbidden.
Most importantly, this doesn’t help an attempted claim that the Third Amendment always applied to the states.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well, I guess if YOU say “federal” districts it must mean “federal districts” and not “ALL districts” despite the fact that the writers and ratifiers of the Amendment could’ve handled this easily by the insertion of the word “federal.”[/quote]
Were there “state” districts at the time of ratification that you are aware of?
I have been watching this thread for a bit. It seems like you guys have been splitting hairs for the last couple of pages in regards to states rights considering almost every state constitution includes the bill of rights or a very similar text.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
I have been watching this thread for a bit. It seems like you guys have been splitting hairs for the last couple of pages in regards to states rights considering almost every state constitution includes the bill of rights or a very similar text.[/quote]
Yeah, talk about a tangent.
Besides, applying what I’ve learned today, none of the topics covered in the last few pages have any applicability now that the 2nd has been incorporated by McDonald v Chicago. Shouldn’t we consider that particular matter settled and move on to gun control topics that have relevance today?
Correct me if I’m wrong here please.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
I have been watching this thread for a bit. It seems like you guys have been splitting hairs for the last couple of pages in regards to states rights considering almost every state constitution includes the bill of rights or a very similar text.[/quote]
Heavens no - states have a varied patchwork of gun laws and regulations. The differences are stark and generate a lot of new legislation and lawsuits.
[quote] twojarslave wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong here please.
[/quote]
A few pages back, I posted:
[quote]As for the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment - can anyone make a legitimate argument that at the time of the ratification of that Amendment that the intent was that any state laws and regulations that had been adopted to the Fourteenth Amendment were suddenly eviscerated by its passage?
Don’t forget it was an amendment and that state legislatures ratified on their own - were the states intending that their existing gun control laws (whatever their makeup) be washed away by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment?Ã?Â
I am happy to hear that case made, but I don’t think anyone can make it.[/quote]
…meaning, the Supreme Court clearly has “incorporated” the Second Amendment, but did they get it right? As I put in my statement and question, I am not so sure they did…by the lights of original intent.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So it’s not pretty clear the federal government had the only control of “soldiers.”
Thus it’s not pretty clear the 3rd only applies to the federal government.
You can arrive at that premise [b]with some maneuvering[b], yes. It’s the “pretty clear” part that’s not so pretty clear.[/quote]
Well, I don’t believe that to be the case, but just as I noted above: let’s assume you are right.
Let’s assume there is ambiguity on the language of the Third Amendment as to who controls “soldiers”. Ok, so to help resolve this ambiguity, go to original meaning.
Can you identify any evidence that the original intent of the ratified of the Bill of Rights intenfed for the Third Amendment apply to the states? Any? At all?
We’re agreeing for the sake of argument there is ambiguity - so, what did the Framers intend?
Do you have anything to point to? Any evidence at all? A court? A person?
[quote] pushharder wrote:
How could there not have been? The states and their legal and judicial frameworks were in place well before the Constitution.
Or did I misunderstand you?
Ahhh maybe I do understand you. Does this help your case if I think you mean what I think you mean?[/quote]
I think you do misunderstand. In 1789, at the same time as the ratification of the Bill of Rights, when the word “district” was used in the Amendment, Congress had just divided the states into thirteen judicial districts. When referring to state matters in federal legislation, Congress alluded to “counties” within states, not “districts”. There is nothing in the history that suggests they meant “district” to also connote “county”. Moreover, the Amendment refers to a State and a district separately.
If you have credible info showing that at the time of ratification, there was an understanding or intent for “district” ro cover state judicial designations, now would be a good time to produce it. I haven’t seen it.
Well, after some thought and a nap, I’m not so sure my argument is as weak as I thought a couple of hours ago.
Amendment Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-This actually means, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the states,” right?
Amendment Eight: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
-State governments were free to require excessive bail, impose excessive fines, and inflict cruel and unusual punishments? What exactly was considered a cruel and unusual punishment for counterfeiting, piracy, and treason, crimes for which death was prescribed?
Amendment Seven: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
-Honestly, I’m just having a hard time believing that this one was only intended to apply to the federal government.
Amendment Six: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
-In all criminal prosecutions for piracy, counterfeiting, and treason, that is, right?
Amendment Five: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
-States were supposed to be allowed to try a person for an offense as many times as necessary to obtain a guilty verdict, compel people to testify against themselves, and be able to deprive their citizens of life, liberty, and property without due process of law or just compensation.
-Etcetera
Push,
I found you a hero. See William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (written in 1825). He suggests the Bill of Rights applied to the states after enactment, in particular the Second Amendment. And he was a fairly prominent attorney (Washington apparently wanted him for attorney general.)
I haven’t read his material in depth, but so far I am unmoved by what he has to say - he seems to argue from a policy preference while ignoring the intent of the ratifiers.
But hey, he is someone who took the view you prefer, and I had not heard of him before.
(You’re welcome.)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s one the problems with the argument that the BoR did apply to the states antebellum (and to the remarks I posted earlier about the 3rd, 6th, 7th and 8th):
It is commonly known, or should be, that the states were free to have state religions in place in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Rhode Island is an example.
Thus the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. I’ve stated this before and kinda forces me to concede the other amendments don’t either.[/quote]
The First Amendment is worded differently than the rest: It says, “Congress shall make no law…”
Well, it has to be black and white at some point, because it applies, or it doesn’t.
I am still waiting on answer re: original intent. Think about it - the changing of the Constitution to add sweeping new restrictions on state conduct would have been, frankly, a radical change and a monumental shift in the relationship between the federal government and the states that hadnonly been struck a gew years before.
If the ratifiers had intended such a radical expansion of federal coverage over state conduct - in matters ranging from firearms regulation, judicial conduct, etc
So, where is the evidence? Where are the written commentaries, floor speeches, etc.? It shouldn’t be that hard. This changed the very nature of what the state signed up for when first ratified the Constitution. Where is the evidence?