Gun Control......

[Glimmer Twins]

They have, as in the case of all "rights" the power to control it in the interest of safety and implementation.

Show us where the Constitution says that.....

 

[Glimmer Twins]

Or are you now going to argue you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater and not be charged with a crime?

The Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever to regulate shouting.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

Every right has limits.

Show us where the Constitution says that......

 

[Glimmer Twins]

In the case of weapons the limits apply to interstate travel and in some cases license requirements.

The Constitution grants the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over travel or weapons.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

You may want to check out the Weaver case, the Federal Government tried to rail road him on sawed off shotguns and failed. He never crossed a State line and was tricked into making it.

How does that change the words of the Constitution?

 

[LOki]

I thought the issue was whether it was nonsense for some to read the no religious test clause in the proposed Constitution to imply that the government had general power over religion.

The issue, as stated, was whether it was nonsense for some to read the 1st Amendement to the Constitution to imply that the government had general power over religion in the unamended Constitution.

It is nonsense. And the suggestion that "no religious test" implies a governmental power over religion is also nonsense. The implication <i>there</i> is that the government might presume such power, as others have, and now it is specifically prohibited.

All of which, BTW, is not the 2nd Amendment issues intorduced in the OP.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

The issue, as stated, was whether it was nonsense for some to read the 1st Amendement to the Constitution to imply that the government had general power over religion in the unamended Constitution.

If the unamended Constitution didn't give the government general power over religion, then why was it necessary to amend it to forbid laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

 

[Glimmer Twins]

...the suggestion that "no religious test" implies a governmental power over religion is also nonsense.

The exclusion of a particular authority over a matter could reasonably be read to imply the existence of general power over the same matter.

 

[Abelian Sea]

If the unamended Constitution didn't give the government general power over religion, then why was it necessary to amend it to forbid laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

I don't think it was, strictly speaking, necessary. I do think it was prudent.

The unamended constitution does not give any branch of government any powers concerning religion. It is also entirely silent about religion, except the no-text-as-requirement-for-public-office, which does not address government power over religion. It is therefore not inconceivable that some intrepid soul might come up with arguments that government must have some power over religion, insofar as religion is intertwined with public welfare and domestic tranquility and whatever, and find some specific power-granting clause that he thinks applies, and procedes from there down the slope to a national religion. The First's religion clause stops him in his tracks.

I think the more realistic reason for the clause, though, is just that the Founders wanted that point to be specifically and explicitly addressed, since it was somewhat a departure from tradition and a significant component of the new country's relatively radical notions of personal freedom.

The exclusion of a particular authority over a matter could reasonably be read to imply the existence of general power over the same matter.

It could reasonably lead one to suspect the existence of such a general power, but it is not sufficient proof of that power.

 

[BrianH]

The Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever to regulate shouting.

Disturbing the Peace Law & Legal Definition

"Disturbing the peace is a minor criminal offense that may be charged when someone makes excessive noise, especially in a residential area, such as by operation of any tool, equipment, vehicle, electronic device, set, instrument, television, phonograph, machine or other noise- or sound-producing device."

The Constitution may not ban shouting, but your state can certainly regulate your shouting....

 

[BrianH]

The exclusion of a particular authority over a matter could reasonably be read to imply the existence of general power over the same matter.

I hate to bring this up again....but....

10th Amendment
"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."

Could this be considered to address exclusions in the Constitution?

 

[roomy]

Ban guns.

 

[Gunny]

Ban guns.

Come get it.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

I don't think it was, strictly speaking, necessary. I do think it was prudent.

The unamended constitution does not give any branch of government any powers concerning religion. It is also entirely silent about religion, except the no-text-as-requirement-for-public-office, which does not address government power over religion. It is therefore not inconceivable that some intrepid soul might come up with arguments that government must have some power over religion, insofar as religion is intertwined with public welfare and domestic tranquility and whatever, and find some specific power-granting clause that he thinks applies, and proceeds from there down the slope to a national religion. The First's religion clause stops him in his tracks.

It didn't stop the Federalists from reading the Constitution to allow the government to establish religion. They just concocted an interpretation of the First Amendment that permitted general federal power over religion except for a narrow exception prohibiting a national religion and the free exercise thereof.

I think the more realistic reason for the clause, though, is just that the Founders wanted that point to be specifically and explicitly addressed, since it was somewhat a departure from tradition and a significant component of the new country's relatively radical notions of personal freedom.

I just go with what they wrote in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The object was prevent anyone from interpreting any of the enumerated powers to grant Congress authority to establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

It could reasonably lead one to suspect the existence of such a general power

It could and did do that.

but it is not sufficient proof of that power.

Madison explained that the no religious test clause was an exception to the authority granted in the following clause from Article VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You guys are aware the founders wanted no Bill of Rights. They argued it was not needed, They claimed since the document only gave specific powers no list of things the Government couldn't do was needed. They lost. It became obvious that in order to Sell several of the Key States they in fact did need a Bill of Rights, Who's purpose was to liost protections beyond which the Government could not go.

Over 180 amendments were proposed and narrowed down to 12. Only 10 passed. That would be why each amendment covers more than one simple thing. Further there is a reason to the order of the Amendments.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

It became obvious that in order to Sell several of the Key States they in fact did need a Bill of Rights

So, why was the Constitution ratified by 11 of the 13 states with no assurances there would be a Bill of Rights? Who could have assured anyone that the First U. S. Congress would or would not propose a Bill of Rights to the states.

Who's purpose was to list protections beyond which the Government could not go.

The Preamble to the proposed amendments state the purpose of the amendments. It says nothing about them being a list of protections beyond which the Government could not go.

Over 180 amendments were proposed and narrowed down to 12. Only 10 passed. That would be why each amendment covers more than one simple thing. Further there is a reason to the order of the Amendments.

What was the reason to the order?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, why was the Constitution ratified by 11 of the 13 states with no assurances there would be a Bill of Rights? Who could have assured anyone that the First U. S. Congress would or would not propose a Bill of Rights to the states.

The Preamble to the proposed amendments state the purpose of the amendments. It says nothing about them being a list of protections beyond which the Government could not go.

What was the reason to the order?

I suggest you BONE up on your history, New York and Pennsylvania REFUSED to ratify the Constitution with out a direct promise a Bill of Rights would be added. I believe several of the smaller States also made the stipulation.

If you are going to argue a point at least know basic historical facts.

The order is clear. Most important to those of a lesser importance.

You have no freedom with out the 1st and no way to protect that freedom with out 2. The rest flow in that vein.

And the BILL OF RIGHTS is by definition a promise that the Government can NOT do certain things. You are pretty ignorant on the subject. The entire argument FOR the Bill of Rights was to ensure certain things would be spelled out that the Government could NOT do. The Framers insisted it was not needed because it was obvious it could not do anything it was not granted the power to do ( aren't we lucky no one believed THAT line.)

 

[Glimmer Twins]

I suggest you BONE up on your history, New York and Pennsylvania REFUSED to ratify the Constitution with out a direct promise a Bill of Rights would be added.

A direct promise from who, dude? Who was in a position to dictate what the legislature of the new government would do?

The order is clear. Most important to those of a lesser importance.

You have no freedom with out the 1st and no way to protect that freedom with out 2. The rest flow in that vein.

What we call the First Amendment was actually the third of the twelve amendments proposed to the states. It only became the First Amendment because the first two of the twelve proposed amendments were rejected by the states.

And the BILL OF RIGHTS is by definition a promise that the Government can NOT do certain things.

Perhaps it is. But, in the case of a Constitution that grants only limited enumerated powers, it was unnecessary, confusing and in the long run may have done more harm than good.

The entire argument FOR the Bill of Rights was to ensure certain things would be spelled out that the Government could NOT do.

No it wasn't, dude.

The Framers insisted it was not needed because it was obvious it could not do anything it was not granted the power to do.

That was also the understanding of the lawmakers who ratified the Constitution.

aren't we lucky no one believed THAT line.

Most of the people believe that line. Otherwise, the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified.

 

[LOki]

If the unamended Constitution didn't give the government general power over religion, then why was it necessary to amend it to forbid laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

The exclusion of a particular authority over a matter could reasonably be read to imply the existence of general power over the same matter.

The implication <i>there</i> is that the government might presume such power, as others have, and now it is specifically prohibited.

 

[Glimmer Twins]

Originally Posted by LOki
The implication there is that the government might presume such power, as others have, and now it is specifically prohibited.

The establishment clause didn't prevent Congress from making a law establishing the duty to trust in God and discharging that duty on behalf of the people by putting "In God We Trust" on the nations coins.