Allison Bricker v. Southern Avenger 10th Amendment Debate Tues. 3:30 Eastern
Submitted by LibertyPulse.com on Tue, 03/16/2010 - 15:56
in
After the Southern Avenger's recent commentary Gunning Down the Constitution Jack Hunter argues Why the Supreme Court overturning Chicago's gun ban would damage the Constitution and increase the power of the federal government.
Smargus.com's Allison Bricker responds in her piece The Supreme Court Ought to Declare Chicago’s Hand Gun Ban UnConstitutional that "Illinois is a member of the union and as such enjoys the privileges and immunities of its membership and thus pledges its allegiance to the Organic laws of the Republic."
LibertyPulse.com has invited them to a debate Tuesday March 16th 3:30pm Eastern
http://libertypulse.com/article/4843
- Today Allison Bricker of The Smoking Argus and Jack Hunter “The Southern Avenger” had their debate on Liberty Pulse. If you missed it don’t worry, you can listen below. Make sure you vote for the winner as well and make your comments below as well.
Deleted Double Post
---Deleted by Author---
Allison Bricker
http://SmArgus.com
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Centralization Is Bad
Hello all, this is my first post at this forum. I’m a firm believer in liberty and decentralized power. With that in mind I proceed:
The first part of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."
From this, we should look at the part “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of ITS powers.” To me the “its” they are referring to is the Federal government, under the Constitution. How can we conclude otherwise? The Constitution was established by the people of the several States; thus all the power given must have been in the States. Of course the Bill of Rights is not a delegated power, but a further check on the Federal government. Why would they put a Bill of Rights together and place it in the Federal Constitution, if they wanted to be protected against the barring of arms from the States? If they were worried Virginia would ban guns, they would have dealt with it at the State level. Of course, the Virginia Constitution at the time protected the right to bear arms, so it would have been silly.
For example, since the Federal government was not given the power to regulate the use of arms, the Bill of Rights really is just a further exclamation: a redundancy. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, so does this mean in 1790, without the Bill of Rights, the Federal government could ban the use of arms? I think not. All the Bill of Rights was was a further restriction on the Federal government, from the fears of the anti-federalists.
Again, the precedent is set for the Federal government to intervene in our lives, once we allow the Federal government to overturn State laws, even for laws we think repugnant. Centralization is bad, no matter who sets the standards. We need to get back to a decentralized government.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
The 14th Amendement
The issue at hand is the 14th Amendment and you didn't even discuss it.
Excellent rebuttal to Mr. Bricker...
"The Incorporation Doctrine is a bogus left-wing invention that has been used for almost uniformly pernicious purposes since it saw the light of day 7 decades ago. Under the Incorporation Doctrine (the idea that federal courts can use twisted readings of their favorite Bill of Rights provisions against the states), federal courts have made flag burning a right, banned capital punishment in general, banned capital punishment of child rapists, banned school prayer, excluded certain evidence against criminal defendants, banned Nativity Scenes from public places, et cetera. And now you want them to apply this same unconstitutional doctrine to a new area of law."
Must read full article: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=678
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
Your Link is to the ORIGINAL Video
...which was followed by my rebuttal at The Smoking Argus, which then led to Kurt Wallace asking both Jack and myself to debate the issue over at LibertyPulse.
Secondly, it is Ms. Bricker, women are allowed to express political opinions as well these days.
Perhaps reading the title and synopisis might be of help to you next time before just posting a comment.
Allison Bricker
http://SmArgus.com
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Negative Rights
I am a huge fan of Jack Hunter. My facebook profile picture is of Jack and myself at CPAC (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000474027443).
This however is one issue where I disagree with him. And while I agree with Allison Brinker, I don't think she had a very good argument in the debate.
Jack Hunter showed in the debate that he doesn't have an understanding of the difference between negative and positive rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)
Article 1 Section 8, enumerated powers, says what the federal government can do. Whereas the bill of rights list negative powers that the federal government cannot do.
The 14th amendment applies these negative powers to the states and says that the states cannot do these things.
In Jack's example that the federal government decided that health care was a right. As a negative right the federal government could overturn a state law that prevented someone from purchasing health care.
The federal government wouldn't be able to require someone to purchase or provide healthcare because that is a positive right.
The 14th amendment only allows the federal government to enforce the negative rights listed in the bill of rights upon the states.
Jack's example of the federal government using the commerce clause to regulate drugs is not a relivant argument because the commerce clause is an enumerated power which is a positive right and this case is about the application of the 14th amendment which only applies to the negative rights listed in the bill of rights.
For more about Negative and Positive Rights visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
This is not to say that there are not checks and balances between the federal and state governments. But it is to say that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And whether is it the state or the federal government violating the constitution. Each should stand up to each other and protect rule of law. That is the states should nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional and the federal government through the courts should be able to rule state laws unconstitutional.
The negative rights listed in the bill of rights do apply to the states through the 14th amendment, and the 14th amendment doesn't give the federal government any new positive rights or enumerated powers.
Michael Mikkelsen
http://twitter.com/mmikkelsen
The Tenth Amendment
Doesn't the tenth amendment state that 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.
Doesn't that mean that the articles and the amendments are the only things the federal government can enforce, while everything else is left to the states? If it doesn't say that, then the federal government, and by extension the constitution, are pointless. It doesn't matter how localized governments are. If they don't have restrictions they can grow out of control. In fact, doesn't the tenth amendment make Allison and Jack only half right with their arguments.
How Does the Supremacy Clause Work?
What does the supremacy clause mean? Article Six of the Constitution states that federal law trumps state law if the federal law is Constitutional. The Second Amendment is obviously Constitutional. The States ratified it and in doing so relinquished their right to regulate arms.
That said, the Courts have obfuscated the issue by not using this argument in their decisions. The use of the "incorporation doctorine" is a way for the federal courts to overrule state legislation while at the same time reserving some federal power to "infringe" on our Second Amendment rights. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand? Why are people so willing to revoke the rights of others to protect themselves from some theoretical future event?
2A and 14th Amendment
Actually the states did not relinquish their right to regulate arms, nor speech, nor to establish a church.
This is an understanding different from the one I had always held, and I've unfortunately been forced to acknowledge this.
On the other hand, the states lost their power to to regulate arms, speech, or establish a church after the 14th Amendment. Whether the 14th was approved at the point of a rifle is a different matter, but it is de facto law.
Besides, as far as the Feds banning guns, it's not the judiciary that could or would do that. It's the executive.
Once Again....
.... How does the Supremacy Clause relate to this issue? It states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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." This seems to be pretty clear as to what law takes precedence when federal law is Constitutional.
By ratifying the Constitution and the various amendments the States agree to be bound by the provisions thereof. The Second Amendment states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Taken together, Article Six and the Second Amendment indicate that neither the federal government nor the States have any right to infringe on the rights of the individuals to keep and bear arms. The governments and courts have used the "commerce clause" and the "general welfare clause" to circumvent the direct intent of the law. This is Hamiltonianism at its worst.
When these laws were written if a citizen wanted to own a cannon, it was his business and his alone. Our governments (federal and State) have perverted the law to insure the government will always possess better weaponry than the citizens. Their arguments are usually based on public safety but are in reality manifistations of the government's fear of the people.
Thomas Jefferson - "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Incorporation is against the original constitution
but not the one we have right now with the 14th amendment.
So I don't agree it would damage the constitution.
It could possibly increase federal power in unseen ways. On the other hand, an increase in guns and gun rights can be seen as a decrease in government power.
Anyway, keep in mind, the right to bear arms is a natural right (given by the Creator--as in the Declaration of Independence--or by man's innateness). The whole point of states' rights is to protect the states from a federal government intent on infringing natural rights.
Increasing the power of the states without doing anything for recognizing the people's natural rights doesn't seem to be useful.
this
is on right now!
Freedom is NOT free!
Bump.
Bump.
I thought the 14th amendment settled this one
You can argue that the War of Northern Aggression was unnecessary, but it's hard to argue that the 14th amendment was not a good thing.
Applying due process and the bill of rights to the states closes the liberty loop. States rights are important, but if the states turn around and take more rights than the feds then what was the point?
The privledges and immunities clause could be the great liberator of the individual. With out meaning to be too dramatic, it could end our serdom status if understood and enforced against the federal government and states.
Not true
The 14th was only intended to give freedmen the same rights as everyone else.
Mobile-Friendly U.S. Constitution
No actually it is true
Although SCOTUS butchered it in the slaughter house cases...The Priviledges and immunities clause in 14th amendment applied bill of rights and unenumerated rights to citizens of states and noncitizens within US.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clau...
This all started with this...
http://dailypaul.com/node/127991
and more info here including Kevin Gutzman's comments:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=678
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
yes this sparked today's
yes this sparked today's debate
http://www.libertypulse.com
Hmm....
One of the explicit duties/powers of the federal govt in the Constitution is to enforce the Bill of Rights.
States nor cities have a right to abrogate our individual right as citizens to keep and bear arms.
.
"Wobbles but doesn't fall down" - weebles