Selective Incorporation......A gross bastardization

[Sun Devil 92]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

 

[washamericom]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

many states made changes after kelo v new london, eminent domain, a terrible decision.

the tenth amendment is just as important as the first and second. heck, they're all important.

first monday in october is coming quick too.

 

[bill718]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?


How many times have you heard the term "Educated Liberal Elite?" I very much doubt conservatives are interested in "educating" their members!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?


How many time have you heard the term "Educated Liberal Elite?" I very much doubt conservatives are interested in "educating" their members!

Clearly you need some of your own.

Educated ==> Indoctrinated
Liberal ==> Left wing...... Liberals are great. The term has been co-opted
Elite ==> Head up the ass

Get it right.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Debate

Settled law ?

There is no such thing.

 

[OKTexas]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

You need a bit more education yourself. The second amendment confers two rights, the first to the States to have a militia for self defense, the second to the people to have and carry arms not only for their self defense but for the defense of their State.

The only amendment in the bill of rights that can be construed to only limit the feds is the 1st, it specifically says "Congress shall pass no law".

On the 17th you are absolutely correct, it sucks, it removed senators absolute loyalty to their States. It allows large out of state donors to have more influence on how the senate conducts their business than the States themselves. The House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house and the Senate, the States house. The 17th turned the founders intent on its head.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

You need a bit more education yourself. The second amendment confers two rights, the first to the States to have a militia for self defense, the second to the people to have and carry arms not only for their self defense but for the defense of their State.

The only amendment in the bill of rights that can be construed to only limit the feds is the 1st, it specifically says "Congress shall pass no law".

On the 17th you are absolutely correct, it sucks, it removed senators absolute loyalty to their States. It allows large out of state donors to have more influence on how the senate conducts their business than the States themselves. The House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house and the Senate, the States house. The 17th turned the founders intent on its head.

Au Contraire......

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

 

[OKTexas]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

You need a bit more education yourself. The second amendment confers two rights, the first to the States to have a militia for self defense, the second to the people to have and carry arms not only for their self defense but for the defense of their State.

The only amendment in the bill of rights that can be construed to only limit the feds is the 1st, it specifically says "Congress shall pass no law".

On the 17th you are absolutely correct, it sucks, it removed senators absolute loyalty to their States. It allows large out of state donors to have more influence on how the senate conducts their business than the States themselves. The House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house and the Senate, the States house. The 17th turned the founders intent on its head.

Au Contraire......

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Fuck SCOTUS, they get shit wrong all the time. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that is a direct conference of a right to the people, not a State, to delegate or anything else.


.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

You need a bit more education yourself. The second amendment confers two rights, the first to the States to have a militia for self defense, the second to the people to have and carry arms not only for their self defense but for the defense of their State.

The only amendment in the bill of rights that can be construed to only limit the feds is the 1st, it specifically says "Congress shall pass no law".

On the 17th you are absolutely correct, it sucks, it removed senators absolute loyalty to their States. It allows large out of state donors to have more influence on how the senate conducts their business than the States themselves. The House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house and the Senate, the States house. The 17th turned the founders intent on its head.

Au Contraire......

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Fuck SCOTUS, they get shit wrong all the time. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that is a direct conference of a right to the people, not a State, to delegate or anything else.


.

I am pro second amendment, but we don't agree on this point and I don't see the strength of any argument here.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit the Federal Government and any allusion to anything such as the right to bear arms (in this context) simply says the federal government can't infringe upon that.

45 states wrote this same language into their consitutions. That somehow implies that they could have gone the other way.

 

[OKTexas]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

You need a bit more education yourself. The second amendment confers two rights, the first to the States to have a militia for self defense, the second to the people to have and carry arms not only for their self defense but for the defense of their State.

The only amendment in the bill of rights that can be construed to only limit the feds is the 1st, it specifically says "Congress shall pass no law".

On the 17th you are absolutely correct, it sucks, it removed senators absolute loyalty to their States. It allows large out of state donors to have more influence on how the senate conducts their business than the States themselves. The House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house and the Senate, the States house. The 17th turned the founders intent on its head.

Au Contraire......

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Fuck SCOTUS, they get shit wrong all the time. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that is a direct conference of a right to the people, not a State, to delegate or anything else.


.

I am pro second amendment, but we don't agree on this point and I don't see the strength of any argument here.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit the Federal Government and any allusion to anything such as the right to bear arms (in this context) simply says the federal government can't infringe upon that.

45 states wrote this same language into their consitutions. That somehow implies that they could have gone the other way.

And the bill of rights was insisted upon by the States to enshrine rights specifically to the States and the People within the Constitutional framework.


.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I constantly find myself explaining to conservatives the concept of Selective Incorporation....something the early Roosevelt criminal court started to use to limits state powers. It was never intended to be the case.

This is clearly seen by the fact that although the constitution does not allow the federal government to enact laws with respect to religion.....there was nothing to prevent states. And, indeed, several states had state sponsored religions that were never challenged. They just all went away via the rewriting or reforming of state constitutions.

Here is one description of Selective Incorporation:

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers.

***************************

And it is total bullshit.

The SCOTUS just can't not grab power as the framers predicted they would:

What is funny is when I explain to this to those on the right and explain that it means that a state should be able to limit firearms however it wants. They usually say "that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed'. And yes it is. The constitution prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from denying that right.
There is no protection from the states. That is why 45 states have essentially the same language in their constitutions. They knew how it worked.

****************************

This disgusting concept (which didn't make it's way out until 1925 as I understand it....but was drawn from the screwed up 14th amendment passed some 60 years earlier) is nothing more than lefties dream of power consolidation.

That along with the 17th amendment have created havoc in our government and hence the clamor over federal politics.

Conservatives have stood by and allowed these things to happen. My friends get pissed when I say you only have yourselves to blame.

Most don't know what either of these things are (S.I. or the 17th). How do conservatives expect to do anything if they won't educate their members ?

You need a bit more education yourself. The second amendment confers two rights, the first to the States to have a militia for self defense, the second to the people to have and carry arms not only for their self defense but for the defense of their State.

The only amendment in the bill of rights that can be construed to only limit the feds is the 1st, it specifically says "Congress shall pass no law".

On the 17th you are absolutely correct, it sucks, it removed senators absolute loyalty to their States. It allows large out of state donors to have more influence on how the senate conducts their business than the States themselves. The House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house and the Senate, the States house. The 17th turned the founders intent on its head.

Au Contraire......

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Fuck SCOTUS, they get shit wrong all the time. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that is a direct conference of a right to the people, not a State, to delegate or anything else.


.

I am pro second amendment, but we don't agree on this point and I don't see the strength of any argument here.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit the Federal Government and any allusion to anything such as the right to bear arms (in this context) simply says the federal government can't infringe upon that.

45 states wrote this same language into their consitutions. That somehow implies that they could have gone the other way.

And the bill of rights was insisted upon by the States to enshrine rights specifically to the States and the People within the Constitutional framework.


.

Agreed. Which likely gave states the right to withhold that right....hence it's almost universal mention in state constitutions.

 

[OKTexas]

You need a bit more education yourself. The second amendment confers two rights, the first to the States to have a militia for self defense, the second to the people to have and carry arms not only for their self defense but for the defense of their State.

The only amendment in the bill of rights that can be construed to only limit the feds is the 1st, it specifically says "Congress shall pass no law".

On the 17th you are absolutely correct, it sucks, it removed senators absolute loyalty to their States. It allows large out of state donors to have more influence on how the senate conducts their business than the States themselves. The House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house and the Senate, the States house. The 17th turned the founders intent on its head.

Au Contraire......

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Fuck SCOTUS, they get shit wrong all the time. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that is a direct conference of a right to the people, not a State, to delegate or anything else.


.

I am pro second amendment, but we don't agree on this point and I don't see the strength of any argument here.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit the Federal Government and any allusion to anything such as the right to bear arms (in this context) simply says the federal government can't infringe upon that.

45 states wrote this same language into their consitutions. That somehow implies that they could have gone the other way.

And the bill of rights was insisted upon by the States to enshrine rights specifically to the States and the People within the Constitutional framework.


.

Agreed. Which likely gave states the right to withhold that right....hence it's almost universal mention in state constitutions.

Child no where does the Constitution use the terms "states" and the people synonymously. The 9th says the rights granted the people in the bill of rights is not exhaustive, and the 10th says the powers granted the feds is. Every State that ratified the bill of rights accepted them for themselves as did every State that subsequently joined the union.


.