Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[Contumacious]

You don't have roll over and play dead, you can respond to the argument in my post?
We have every right to resist tyranny in our government with the vote and other lawful means but not with armed resistance. There are numerous examples that so far armed resistance to our govenment has not worked. Perhaps those throughout our history that have resisted the government with arms believed they were fighting tyranny.

Excuse the **** out of me dumb ass.

But the last election confirmed that the Parasitic Factions constitutes over 50% of the electorate.

So long as Parasites and those who depend on the federal government for the sustenance get to vote they will vote for whomever promises the most.

.

Yep, sounds even a little like capitalism?

No sounds like COMMUNISM.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As long as what I feel is my right doesn't impinge on what you believe are your rights, we're fine. Restricting my ability to defend myself with a firearm is most definitely impinging on my rights, just as it is if I shoot you with one of those firearms.

If Congress passes a law, the President signs the law, and SCOTUS reviews and upholds the law - then it's the law. No matter what you may think it infringes upon. Period.

Get thee a dictionary

Nullification - the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.

The rest of your post was whining bullshit.

Nullification?

You’ve got to be kidding.

Nullification was invalidated at the outset of the Republic.

In United States v. Peters (1809), the Court held that states cannot void Federal court rulings, or deny rights recognized by the courts – to do so violates the Constitution:

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Federal government, acts for Congress, and the judiciary:

Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution."

Conservatives are clearly unaware of the fact that their continued adherence to the fantasy of ‘nullification’ makes them appear only pathetic and ignorant.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

Any law not challenged successfully in the courts is constitutional by default.

Not quite. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional inherently. The fact that a court has not yet declared it such does not eliminate its defect. If it did, then no plaintiff would ever have standing to seek any form of relief, and no law could ever "become" unconstitutional by subsequent judicial review.

The constitution itself does not explicitly grant the judiciary the power to rule a law unconstitutional. Instead, it grants to the courts judicial powers. The courts interpret the law, including the constitution, to determine the correct way to apply the law to cases and controversies. When a law is constitutionally defective, then the correct way to apply that law is to set it aside completely. Therefore, in ruling laws unconstitutional the courts do not exercise an explicit power that they are entitled to so exercise at their will. They are executing their judicial powers, and in the course of doing so, have the responsibility to identify such incongruities in the law.

Before this fateful day in court occurs, however, the law in question is already defective by the constitution. However, because no body of government has the official power to settle such a question, the law must be presumed constitutional for purposes of executing the laws of the land.

wow. what a bunch of horseshit. you're wrong. and you have a terrible idea about how law, particularly constitutional law works. nycarbiner was completely right. here, want to show you how you're a ******* idiot?

sb1070, the racist bullshit we hate mexicans law that jan brewer's arizona enacted? i know you probably loved the shit out of that law. but that means you love an unconstitutional law. now, had scotus decided to uphold it, it would have been completely constitutional.

that's what i love about conservatives. they imagine the constitution as having some supreme all powerful knowledge just built right in. like the piece of ******* parchment itself could divine what was acceptable to it or not. you dumb ***** have no CLUE what the supreme court's role in all this is.

here, let me educate you: they get to decide what the constitution is, how it's applied, and what is either constitutional or unconstitutional. in other words: it's whatever the **** those nine people say it is.

dumb *****.

 

[Contumacious]

Any law not challenged successfully in the courts is constitutional by default.

Not quite. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional inherently. The fact that a court has not yet declared it such does not eliminate its defect. If it did, then no plaintiff would ever have standing to seek any form of relief, and no law could ever "become" unconstitutional by subsequent judicial review.

The constitution itself does not explicitly grant the judiciary the power to rule a law unconstitutional. Instead, it grants to the courts judicial powers. The courts interpret the law, including the constitution, to determine the correct way to apply the law to cases and controversies. When a law is constitutionally defective, then the correct way to apply that law is to set it aside completely. Therefore, in ruling laws unconstitutional the courts do not exercise an explicit power that they are entitled to so exercise at their will. They are executing their judicial powers, and in the course of doing so, have the responsibility to identify such incongruities in the law.

Before this fateful day in court occurs, however, the law in question is already defective by the constitution. However, because no body of government has the official power to settle such a question, the law must be presumed constitutional for purposes of executing the laws of the land.

wow. what a bunch of horseshit. you're wrong. and you have a terrible idea about how law, particularly constitutional law works. nycarbiner was completely right. here, want to show you how you're a ******* idiot?

sb1070, the racist bullshit we hate mexicans law that jan brewer's arizona enacted? i know you probably loved the shit out of that law. but that means you love an unconstitutional law. now, had scotus decided to uphold it, it would have been completely constitutional.

that's what i love about conservatives. they imagine the constitution as having some supreme all powerful knowledge just built right in. like the piece of ******* parchment itself could divine what was acceptable to it or not. you dumb ***** have no CLUE what the supreme court's role in all this is.

here, let me educate you: they get to decide what the constitution is, how it's applied, and what is either constitutional or unconstitutional. in other words: it's whatever the **** those nine people say it is.

dumb *****.

Really?


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Brandeis-Frankfurter-Connection-Activities/dp/0195031229"]The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices [/ame]

.

 

[asterism]

For that to work anyone would have to be able to be in the guard, and they could not require a time commitment unless in time of war, similar to what happened in the civil war when the militas were called up for a certain period of service.

They would also have to be independent, not federalized.

The guard is under the states unless federalized by the president. Check it out, including the militia act of, as I remember, 1903.

It's a federal operation. What state has National Guard basic training? None. What state arms it's own guard? None.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Um, no. That is not how it works. If laws are unconstitutional, they are not laws, thus nothing about them is enforceable.

According to your idea of how our government works, Congress could pass a law that says everyone in Fairfax County, VA must be executed by the end of next week. So, all these persons in FFX County would have to prove they shouldn't be executed by the end of next week.

That's absurd.

Actually not.

All acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. See: Ogden v. Saunders (1827).

A Federal statute authorizing the confiscation of guns and/or prohibiting you from owning a gun is valid and enforceable when signed into law.

You would then file suit in Federal court, likely seeking an injunction of the enforcement of the law pending judicial review. You would argue that the law is a violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, infringing upon the right of self-defense, the right to privacy, and the right to due process, respectively.

But such a law would be valid and in effect nonetheless, particularly if no one challenges the law, or if a court upholds the law as valid.

 

[asterism]

If these were such important sentiments, shared by the founders, why are they not included in the Constitution?

I shouldn't have to read Jefferson's private papers to learn his feelings. On page 334, no less.

What's your basis to support collective bargaining, privacy and abortion again?

They are all derived from Constitutional decisions by SCOTUS.

Do you have any decisions from SCOTUS that spell out that one of the reasons for the 2nd was as a deterrent to the U.S. government's over-reach?

Good answer, and yes:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, again its the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the milita to keep and bear arms.

So what's the well regulated militia doing in the 2nd amendment? Just there for show?

That if the state wants to call the people into the milita, it needs to do so in a regulated manner, i.e. officers, reasons, and overall goals. The milita was not to be called for spurrious reasons. However the people retained the right to be arm so they could ably serve in the milita if needed.

its not the fault of the people that the states have not mustered the unorganzied milita in recent time.

As we all know, there was no ‘standing army’ during the Foundation Era, the ‘militia clause’ of the Second Amendment refers to a resource, or ‘pool,’ as the Heller Court observes, that Congress may use at a time of war, when mobilization could likely take weeks:

From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will
make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in
Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

D.C. v. Heller (2008).

A ‘well regulated militia,’ therefore, concerns a body of men ready and able to come to the defense of a given state or the Republic, not as a ‘force’ to overthrow the Federal government.

 

[Darkwind]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Not exactly. The government cannot even stop criminals from using guns. The everyday citizen just needs to ignore such unconstitutional laws and if they are brought to bear against him or her, it is the government that has to prove its case that it has such powers.

It does not. As g5000 stated. Our rights are protected, not granted to us.

You want to take them. Then by all means, justify it by passing an Amendment.

Otherwise.....

 

[ZimothyTahn]

Not quite. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional inherently. The fact that a court has not yet declared it such does not eliminate its defect. If it did, then no plaintiff would ever have standing to seek any form of relief, and no law could ever "become" unconstitutional by subsequent judicial review.

The constitution itself does not explicitly grant the judiciary the power to rule a law unconstitutional. Instead, it grants to the courts judicial powers. The courts interpret the law, including the constitution, to determine the correct way to apply the law to cases and controversies. When a law is constitutionally defective, then the correct way to apply that law is to set it aside completely. Therefore, in ruling laws unconstitutional the courts do not exercise an explicit power that they are entitled to so exercise at their will. They are executing their judicial powers, and in the course of doing so, have the responsibility to identify such incongruities in the law.

Before this fateful day in court occurs, however, the law in question is already defective by the constitution. However, because no body of government has the official power to settle such a question, the law must be presumed constitutional for purposes of executing the laws of the land.

wow. what a bunch of horseshit. you're wrong. and you have a terrible idea about how law, particularly constitutional law works. nycarbiner was completely right. here, want to show you how you're a ******* idiot?

sb1070, the racist bullshit we hate mexicans law that jan brewer's arizona enacted? i know you probably loved the shit out of that law. but that means you love an unconstitutional law. now, had scotus decided to uphold it, it would have been completely constitutional.

that's what i love about conservatives. they imagine the constitution as having some supreme all powerful knowledge just built right in. like the piece of ******* parchment itself could divine what was acceptable to it or not. you dumb ***** have no CLUE what the supreme court's role in all this is.

here, let me educate you: they get to decide what the constitution is, how it's applied, and what is either constitutional or unconstitutional. in other words: it's whatever the **** those nine people say it is.

dumb *****.

Really?


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Brandeis-Frankfurter-Connection-Activities/dp/0195031229"]The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices [/ame]

.

seems like a credible book filled with all kinds of historically accurate tidbits.

 

[Inthemiddle]

wow. what a bunch of horseshit. you're wrong. and you have a terrible idea about how law, particularly constitutional law works. nycarbiner was completely right. here, want to show you how you're a ******* idiot?

HAHA, this is cute. I know you're new around here. But understanding the law is not one of my weak points. Clearly, I cant' say the same about you. You can ask mycarbiner yourself if you like. We disagree on some things here and there, but I think he'll tell you that I'm no "******* idiot." So please all me to educate you.

Let's consider what American Jurisprudence has to say about this issue. You do know American Jurisprudence, right? No? Oh, let me tell you. It's a law encyclopedia published by West. No doubt, since you know a thing or two about law you know who West is, and know that they are the most well respected publisher of legal literature in pretty much the entire world. Anyway, this is what they have to say about constitutionality:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178 (emphasis added)



sb1070, the racist bullshit we hate mexicans law that jan brewer's arizona enacted? i know you probably loved the shit out of that law. but that means you love an unconstitutional law.[/quote]

Which just goes to show how little you know. No, I don't "love" that law, and I said from the beginning that the law was unconstitutional. But I hope you feel better after your little rant.

now, had scotus decided to uphold it, it would have been completely constitutional.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The law is unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional when it was enacted, it remains unconstitutional. You obviously don't understand how the judiciary works. The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land. They often hear cases regarding constitutionality. However, they are not the only ones to do so. There are plenty of laws that are ruled as unconstitutional before they reach the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court is merely the highest level of appeal to which a person may elevate such a case.

that's what i love about conservatives. they imagine the constitution as having some supreme all powerful knowledge just built right in. like the piece of ******* parchment itself could divine what was acceptable to it or not. you dumb ***** have no CLUE what the supreme court's role in all this is.

Well, I'm not a conservative, so I won't speak for them. But I will say that you clearly don't understand anything about constitutional law. The constitution is itself an inanimate object. Itself, it contains no more wisdom than a rock. As a law, the constitution reflects the wisdom of those who created it. As the highest law of the land, the constitution sets out a form of government, and grants powers to respective branches therein. The judiciary of the federal government has the power to hear cases and controversies that may arise out of federal law and the constitution. The court's role is to HEAR the cases, and to issue a ruling of how the law applies to the specific case. The only power the courts have to void a law is on the basis of constitutional defect. That defect must be a defect in fact. The courts have no power to void a law based on any other form of undesirability, whether it be intellectual or moral. A finding of constitutional defect is not a weapon by which the courts may strike at those intellectual or moral undesirabilities. As Thurgood Marshall said, "The constitution does not prevent [the government] from making stupid laws."

But all the same, none of that has anything to do with the nature of unconstitutionality.

here, let me educate you: they get to decide what the constitution is, how it's applied, and what is either constitutional or unconstitutional. in other words: it's whatever the **** those nine people say it is.

What, just because it's what they want? I think you do our judiciary a grave disservice. In any event, you STILL fail to address the nature of what it means for a law to be constitutional or not. A law that violates the constitution does so from its inception. Period. The "rule of law" demands that law reigns supreme. Not the whims of a King, or the whims of a judge, or a panel of judges. These nine government officials, they do not rule the constitution. The constitution rules them in their role as government officials. To insist that these people have the power to create unconstitutionality within a law is to say that the law is inferior to them. And such a concept is the exact opposite of what the constitution represents.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's a federal operation. What state has National Guard basic training? None. What state arms it's own guard? None.

That's not really true. The states may send their National Guard to train with the federal military, but that's a simple matter of subcontracting. Also, the states arm their NGs. There's simply no way to say that they don't.

 

[Lakhota]

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" – the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

The National Guard may receive state funding however in most states it primarily funded through the federal government. The Army Reserve is solely funded by the federal government. It is also, however, restricted by posse comitatus.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Darkwind]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Where is it written that the government can limit the 2nd Amendment?

Oh, that's right. It say exactly the opposite....that the right "shall not be infringed"......

 

[Lakhota]

Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

It isn't written. Just another paranoid NaziCon delusion...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no expiration date on a persons oath of enlistment

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

 

[Clementine]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Wayne Lapierre wrote it in his book.

And Timothy McVeigh used to hand out pamphlets promoting that notion.

why do you insist on comparing gun owners to terrorists ??

Because they have to spin things and make all gun owners sound like terrorists. They can't very well admit that the vast majority of legal gun owners are decent people who wouldn't hurt anyone, unless of course someone intended to harm them. We have guns for the very same reason Obama has Secret Service and his children's school has armed guards. We value life, especially our own and our family's.

Our country was founded to escape from an unfair form of government. They didn't want to live in a country where dicator's ruled. Yes, initially the constitution was intended to make it understood that the people are in control and that government was by the people, for the people............. The constitution still stands, and will till someone shreds it.

Things have changed significantly since this country was founded and for decades now, the relationship between the people and government has been "us" and "them." It's just supposed to be "we." We are so far away from where we are supposed to be.

Suppose we did have a rogue government that intended to oppress and harm it's people. Should we fight back if state police were gathering people the way Hitler did? It likely won't ever come to that, but a disarmed population would be solely at the mercy of ruthless leaders. It's the fact that we are armed that prevents that scenario. People should never fear government and the fact that many do now means that we have gotten off track. There are so many taxes, rules and regulations and we have a huge government that could put so many people in jail for crimes they don't even know they are committing. They are supposed to be public servants who have the honor of serving their country. Now we have a man who doesn't even want to go through congress to make laws. He thinks he's above all and will not even respect our system. Even congress votes on bills without reading them. That is extraordinarily irresponsible. What the hell are they there for if not to fully understand what their decisions are doing to this country? We pay them to go and vote along party lines without understanding the laws they help pass. We pay them to do a job and they haven't even passed a budget in years. I'm tired of hearing how hard they work when they can't even tell you what laws they pushed through.

I know Obama has said numerous times that he doesn't intend to take the guns away from the people. He also said no one making under $250,000 would pay a dime more in new taxes, then gave us the highest tax increase in the history of our country with Obamacare. You know the one that wasn't a tax till they were in court, then quickly turned back to not being a tax after it was upheld as a tax? We also have lower paychecks this month because SS tax was raised, even for those really poor people. Obama also said he'd bring our troops home. He said if he didn't fix the economy in the first four years, he didn't deserve another term. Now he promises that he will not take all of our guns, just some of them. Do you believe he's telling the truth for once?

 

[asterism]

The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia" – the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

The National Guard may receive state funding however in most states it primarily funded through the federal government. The Army Reserve is solely funded by the federal government. It is also, however, restricted by posse comitatus.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what about the unorganized militia?

 

[asterism]

It's a federal operation. What state has National Guard basic training? None. What state arms it's own guard? None.

That's not really true. The states may send their National Guard to train with the federal military, but that's a simple matter of subcontracting. Also, the states arm their NGs. There's simply no way to say that they don't.

Then show me a state National Guard unit that is not subject to mandatory Federal training, Federal arms, and Federal control. No state has a militarized force that is not conscripted into and trained by the Federal forces.

That's beside my original point, and that's that militias need not be part of a government operation.

 

[asterism]

Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

It isn't written. Just another paranoid NaziCon delusion...

No, it actually is written as a part of SCOTUS case law.