HOME


Get regular updates
delivered to your inbox.

Enter your e-mail address:


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

tracker


The views expressed on the following sites are not necessarily those of EverVigilant.net

WRITERS/COLUMNISTS
   Chuck Baldwin
   Bob Barr
   David Alan Black
   Patrick J. Buchanan
   Dmitry Chernikov
   Vox Day
   Thomas DiLorenzo
   Darrell Dow
   Thomas Fleming
   Pieter Friedrich
   Steven Greenhut
   William N. Grigg
   Jacob G. Hornberger
   Stephan Kinsella
   Eric Margolis
   Ilana Mercer
   Jonathan David Morris
   Albert Mohler
   Gary North
   Ron Paul
   Justin Raimondo
   Fred Reed
   Charley Reese
   Paul Craig Roberts
   Lew Rockwell
   Peter Schiff
   Phyllis Schlafly
   Joseph Sobran
   Joe Soucheray
   Thomas Sowell
   John Stossel
   Andrew Sullivan
   Laurence M. Vance
   Walter Williams
   Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
   Steven Yates

RESOURCES
   Education for Liberty
   Institute on the
      Constitution

   King Lincoln Archive
   Tenth Amendment Center

STAY INFORMED
   Abort73.com
   Acton Institute
   The American View
   American Vision
   Antiwar.com
   Audit the Fed
   Chronicles Magazine
   Conservative Times
   Constitution Party
   Dave Black Online
   Dixie Broadcasting
   Downing Street Memo
   Drudge Report
   Future of Freedom
     Foundation

   GovTrack.us
   Gun Owners of America
   Judicial Watch
   LewRockwell.com
   Ludwig von Mises Institute
   The Memory Hole
   Dr. Joseph Mercola
   Dr. Donald Miller
   The New American
   Newsback.com
   Policy of Liberty
   Proof That God Exists
   The Right Source
   Sobran's
   Southern Heritage 411
   John Stossel (ABC News)
   Strike the Root
   World Magazine
   WorldNetDaily

BLOGROLL
   Adam's Thoughts
   Acton PowerBlog
   The Agitator
   Antiwar.com Blog
   Back Home Again
   The Backwater Report
   Baghdad Burning
   Buried Treasure
   Christian Covenanter
   Christian Exodus
   Conservative Times
   Constitutional Government
   Covenant News
   The Daily Burkeman
   Daily Paul
   Dave Black
   Doug's Blog
   Dow Blog
   Facing the Sharks
   For God, Family, Republic
   Gimmie Back My Bullets
   Grits for Breakfast
   Homeschooling Revolution
   John Lofton
   John Taylor Gatto
   Jonathan Grubbs's Blog
   Karen De Coster
   The Knight Shift
   LewRockwell.com Blog
   Liberty & Power
   Militant Pacifist
   Newsback.com
   Old Virginia Blog
   Orange Punch
   Pieter Friedrich
   Pro Libertate
   Red Pills
   Taki's Daily Blog
   Vox Popoli



SHOP NOW
for EV shirts,
mugs and other items

Your comments
are welcome.


Get Firefox!

- EverVigilant.net -
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran

3/19/2008

Finally! Someone Who Actually Understands the Second Amendment

At issue isn't whether or not the Second Amendment supports the individual's right to keep and bear arms. It does, and it exists to make sure the federal government can in no way infringe on that right.

However, the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states (or pseudo-states, in the case of Washington, D.C.) from enacting their own restrictions. That was the whole point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Dr. Kevin Gutzman agrees:
    The original understanding of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was reflected in the Bill's preamble. That preamble says that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [that is, the federal government's] powers." It was not about empowering federal judges to strike down state laws, in other words, but about limiting federal power.

    The Supreme Court reflected this understanding in the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore (1833). There, for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Marshall said that the Bill of Rights limited only the powers of the federal government, not those of the states. This was the only significant decision in which Marshall came out for a limitation on federal power; he did so because what he was saying was indisputable.

    One might counter by saying that the District of Columbia is part of the federal government. Yet, Congress long ago delegated home rule functions to D.C., and it allows residents to elect mayors, city councilors, and a delegate to Congress. When it comes to the Second Amendment, then, D.C. is a state, and the Second Amendment does not restrict its policy-making discretion.

    This is not to say that gun control laws are a good idea. It also does not mean that D.C. residents do not have a right to keep and bear arms. What it means is that if they want that right to be respected, people in D.C. should take that up with their own government, not end-run the republican process by trying to get the Court to overturn its valid laws.

    If the conservative majority on the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mr. Heller and against the D.C. gun laws, it will be ruling against the original understanding of the Second Amendment.
Thank you, Dr. Gutzman. We need more constitutional originalists like you.

It's one thing to defend the right to keep and bear arms, but it should not be done at the expense of states' rights. After all, that was one of the principles the Second Amendment was designed to protect.

Labels: ,

6 Comments:

Blogger Mike said...

He's wrong.

If any subordinate jurisdiction is free to impose its own positions, the Constitution means nothing. That, incidentally, was the point of the 14th Amendment, since a number of states made this exact mistake.

Let's suppose for a moment your own state has just declared Islam the State Religion and imposed a 5 day waiting period on publication, subject to review of your material by a government agency.

Okay, I look forward to hearing from you in five days. Don't miss the 1600 prayer time, or you will be flogged.

And don't complain, because it doesn't violate your federal rights. The State has merely made its own rules. You must respect them, or move. Your neighboring state is Mormon, and the one on the other side prohibits all worship.

Incidentally, DC's "home rule" failed this test in two courts so far (and in several previous cases). Some screeching socialist shill for the Communist News Network, disguising his comments with the mask of "state's rights" has little credibility.

3/24/08, 1:08 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Second Amendment RTKBA IS Enumerated, and therefore not subject to variance under IX or X.

Epic fail.

3/24/08, 1:11 PM  
Blogger Lee Shelton IV said...

Having subordinate jurisdictions free to impose their own positions is the underlying principle of federalism. Even after ratification of the Constitution, the individual states were considered free and independent republics.

As for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to make the constitutional restrictions of the federal government binding on the states. In fact, it wasn't until the 1920s that the courts started ruling that way.

Your hypothetical example of a state imposing Islamic rule isn't applicable. Article IV, sec. 4, of the Constitution specifically guarantees that each state shall have a republican form of government. Imposing another form of government would be one of the powers "prohibited by [the Constitution] to the states."

If, however, one state were to impose a 75% income tax on its citizens, the federal government would have no say in the matter, but the citizens would be perfectly free to move to another state. The whole point of allowing states to operate independently -- except, of course, in those instances specifically addressed by the Constitution (entering into treaties with foreign nations, imposing duties on imports, etc.) -- is the decentralization of power. That is key to maintaining a free country.

3/24/08, 4:24 PM  
Blogger Lee Shelton IV said...

And where did you get the idea that Kevin Gutzman, co-author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, was a "screeching socialist shill for the Communist News Network"?

3/24/08, 4:29 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

Because he completely misconstrued the 9th and 10th Amendments, and I can only assume deliberately. However, now that I see he writes for Lew Rockwell, I retract the statement. He's not a socialist, he's a fascist.

Incidentally, the Hypothetical State has a 5 day wait on publication (imposed at the state level as a "reasonable restriction" in case of "hate speech" or "treason"). By publishing 4 days early, you have violated the law.

But don't worry, you still have a federally guaranteed right to free speech, subject to "Reasonable restrictions" at the state level, which you may exercise after being released from (state) jail.

His exact same argument HAS been used, btw, to support the theory of a state religion.

Please show me where the 1st Amendment says a state religion is against the Constitution...since the States in his (mistaken) opinion retain the right to alter the Bill of Rights as they see fit. Nor does Art 4 matter, as long as the State Republic decides said religion should be the official one.

Yup, the Hypothetical State passed all these "reasonable restrictions" through its legislature. The Fed has no right to interfere.

It's time for Sunset Prayer. Please get on your knees. It's a Religion of Peace.

3/24/08, 11:03 PM  
Blogger Lee Shelton IV said...

"Fascist," huh? Why don't you try looking up the word sometime? LRC prides itself on being anti-state. Not really sure how one could jump to the conclusion that they want a totalitarian form of government. But whatever.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, there were states like Massachusetts and Connecticut that had state churches. So, no, a state religion per se wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It may, however, violate that state's own constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of a religion.

Why do you insist on binding the states? (Let me guess: You think Lincoln was a great president.) Does the localization of power frighten you? Or is it because you would much rather trust the federal government? Tell me, since when did the three branches of the federal government give a rat's patoot about the Constitution?

As I said, decentralization is key. Unfortunately, nationalists find such concepts foreign. They are afraid it might result in too much freedom. Power MUST be centralized. All hail the national government!

3/25/08, 9:41 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


TERROR ALERT LEVEL
Terror Alert Level

BLOG ARCHIVES

POSTS BY LABEL
  Abortion
  Big Brother
  Blogging
  Breaking News
  Constitution
  Courts
  Crime
  Culture/Society
  Dixie
  Economics
  Education
  Elections
  Environment
  Eternal Vigilance
  Foreign Policy
  Free Market
  Free Speech
  Government Corruption
  Government Incompetence
  Health
  Homeland Security
  Immigration
  Imperialism
  Just for Fun
  Keep and Bear Arms
  Liberty
  Media
  Military
  Nanny State
  Party Politics
  Personal
  Police State
  Privacy
  Property
  Religion
  Ron Paul
  Science
  Sports
  States' Rights
  Statism
  Stupidity
  Taxes
  Technology
  Tyranny
  War



Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz and find out!

Order the CD