Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS... [View all]caseymoz
(5,763 posts)150. Wrong. And there's not even any doubt about this.
Article VI, Section 2 reads as follows:
"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 article is unamended. It reads exactly the same now as it did when the Constitution was adopted. It's extremely clear. Everything in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights was made apply to the states from the very beginning. Period. That last clause is probably the most unambiguous one in the document. It cannot be read any other way. No State Constitution and no state law is supreme to the Federal Constitution and all laws and treaties made under it, and every judge in every state is supposed to be bound to the Federal Constitution and federal law first and foremost.
If this was disputed leading up to the Civil War, it was because the Federal Government wasn't perceived as strong enough to enforce this. The principle of Federal supremacy over the States wasn't even questionable. The Southern states had no principle to stand on, they just believed they could weasel out of the deal.
Why do people, including Justices, pretend this section doesn't exist? They have their own agendas, and I'm sure the Constitutional debates and Federalist Papers give them a variety of opinions with which to obfuscate, hedge, and give the states latitude. However, this doesn't change the way this section reads. In a straight conflict with the Federal government, the states had to yield, and that was always expected.
However, when Conservative judges call themselves constructionists, they are bullshitting. If they were strict constructionists, states rights would not even be called states rights. It would be called state jurisdiction.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
172 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't," FFS... [View all]
TygrBright
Dec 2012
OP
Damn right. We must reframe the gun issue and deal with it harsly as a terror instrument
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#1
Well, a good many years of historical and Constitutional scholarship don't necessarily...
TygrBright
Dec 2012
#6
type: incorporation bill rights into the Google search box top-right of this page
cthulu2016
Dec 2012
#102
actually, that the bill of rights applied only to the federal gov't originally is a matter of fact,
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#121
Why do you find it necessary to insult everyone and call them stupid and liars?
pangaia
Dec 2012
#148
IMO, there is only one thing worse than ignorance, and that is WILLFUL ignorance.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#72
You just said what I've been thinking as I am reading this exchange. nt
DeschutesRiver
Dec 2012
#172
They want military firepower without the military discipline & civilian control that goes with it.
baldguy
Dec 2012
#69
But the tenth amendment is not a restriction on government power in the first place
jberryhill
Dec 2012
#131
That's right. And we have the National Guard and state, county and city/town police
brush
Dec 2012
#115
Of course the tenth amendment was passed and ratified well after the rest of it
nadinbrzezinski
Dec 2012
#50
A mentally ill person shooting little kids is not part of a well regulated militia
Botany
Dec 2012
#20
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 1st amendment does not mention "Life, Liberty....
A HERETIC I AM
Dec 2012
#44
That is one hell of an opinion you have there, but it is utterly indefensible.
1-Old-Man
Dec 2012
#23
Fed 29 was in large part, a treatise on the proper organization of the militia
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#142
Agree, we have a political system that allows "revolutions" every 4 years.
Old and In the Way
Dec 2012
#34
IMO it's the "right of self-defense" not the "right to keep and bear arms" that is the key issue.
jody
Dec 2012
#36
Taken together and in context, the 2nd and 3rd Amendments exist because we're not supposed to have
TransitJohn
Dec 2012
#41
You are correct. Not many people even know that the 2nd Amendment was to keep citizens armed in
Lint Head
Dec 2012
#84
I'm guessing this is sincere. The same is true for your kids...up to some level you can do to or
libdem4life
Dec 2012
#163
Actually, the only thing that could change the current SCOTUS interpretation
amandabeech
Dec 2012
#109
This OP does not offer a holistic analysis of the Colonial / Constitution era context...
reeds2012
Dec 2012
#138