The Supreme Court might make a ruling about the 2nd Amendment fairly soon and i think it is essential that people start familiarizing themselves with some of the facts of these questions.
Of course i believe MY opinion is 100% correct but i have been forced to admit this case has been debated since the beginning of the founding of the nation, and opposing opinions have come from politicians, the public, and Supreme Court Justices.
The Libertarian view is the right one since the founders of the nation spoke only of preserving rights, but the anti-rights activists have re-opened a loophole in the age old dispute of separations of powers from the public, the state , and the federal government.
Now that the public is less aware of history, there are more opportunities to make the wrong decisions.
To fully understand this debate we have to familiarize ourselves with some of the characters in this play.
(This is of course just my opinion.)
* The Federalist Party : They felt America was too weak without a federal government, they were key group in creating it, most of their politicians were thrown out in 1812. Most modern historians quote from them.
* The Anti-Federalist Party: They felt a federal government would be the end of their rights. They demanded a Bill Of Rights when the states supplied enough ratifications to adopt the Constitution.
* Alexander Hamilton : Wanted a federal government to determine everything, only cared about individual rights when it was politically correct. I suggest you just ignore everything this fruitloop had to say. He is always quoted by modern historians.
* James Madison "Father of the Constitution" : He was a Federalist but he was dedicated to doing the right thing. He later was allied with Jefferson.
* John Adams: A Federalist, Second President of the United States. He started passing laws all over the place , many of which were overturned by Jefferson when the Federalists were booted from power.
* Thomas Jefferson 'Declaration of Independence': Brilliant political thinker was a minister to France during these debates, (which i'm starting to think wasn't an accident), corresponded by letter. originally opposed the Bill of Rights but then said they better take what they can get.
* John Marshall: Federalist and Supreme Court Justice , wanted the nation controlled by the federal courts and grabbed a lot of power for the Supreme Court.
The modern debate begins with anti-rights activists pushing the issue that gun control is determined by each state and you commonly hear them say "we support states rights", simply because they know they have enough sell-outs in the state government that they can buy off enough people to start a domino effect.
Pro-gunners immediately shoot back, not with bullets like they should, but with the argument, 'what do you mean by state's rights?, the federal 2nd Amendment says we have this right'.
Pro-gunners then get showered with a whole host of other blurred defintions,then the Anti-rights activists eventually tell us the shocking news that The Bill Of Rights didn't apply to the states, and to my own surprise there is actually truth in this, they show us PROOF that the Bill of Rights was applied to the states when the 14th Amendment was passed, and of course the anti-rights activists want the Supreme Court to ignore the 2nd Amendment part of the 14th Amendment.
(No doubt this is the prevailing view being taught in colleges and law schools today)
My Research shows that the 14th Amendment(1833) had more to due with removing rights than it did for preserving rights.
Propagandists of the Civil War era were walking around saying the 14th Amendment was going to force the Bill of Rights to apply to the states but the reality was the 14th Amendment...
* Refuses to the right of natural born citizens to vote or hold office who are deemed rebels
* Removes the right to abolish corrupt government.
(cited in the Declaration of Independence, and the Virginia Constitution still current, and in the general sprit of the American revolution)
* Allows the Congress to use treasury money to supress rebellions without question.
My research shows that the idea of, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed, is actually a half truth, or more accurately a 1/10th truth.
The surprising thing is , they point out that the First Amendment starts with "Congress shall make to law" which means it only applies to the Federal government.
That's right folks, "freedom of speech", "religion", ect... was originally all left up to state government constitutions and an example appears to be in Massachusetts where the state required every male to be a member of a church and pay church taxes until 1833. (14th Amnd)
The anti-rights activists ignore the fact the 2nd Amendment and others are directed at "The People"
My question was, "did we really need the 14th Amendment to officially tie the Bill of Rights to the states?".
My theory is 'No', and in doing some quick research, i found evidence of this,
In the case Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) the Supreme Court ruled that they can hear cases between states and the citizens of states because it is outlined in the Constitution under Atricle 3 Section 2.
This case was overturned, but not for the same reason.
People were upset because they didn't feel the Supreme Court had the right to hear cases between a state, and a citizen of a DIFFERENT state.
In response the law makers created the 11th Amendment, removing that ability of the Suprme Court, but they did not say a citizen couldn't bring a case to the Supreme court involving his OWN state, if they felt that way it would have been listed in the 11th.
In my opinion this is PROOF a citizen could bring his own state to Federal court over Bill of Rights issues.
The founders themselves have sited repeatedly that every right an American has, doesn't have to be listed.
Anti-rights activists will then cite the case of Barron V. Baltimore (1833) where Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and his court said the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states.
We are taught today that The Supreme Court is the ultimate decision maker of law, but it wasn't always that way.
In doing some quick research i found a famous case where President Thomas Jefferson refused to follow the ruling of John Marshall's court and he told Marshall that all branches of government were created equal and the Supreme Court can not make orders for the other two branches. Every branch has the ability to determine Constitutionality.
It's also imortant to note that the case Barron V. Baltimore (1833) was a case where a man was suing his city, it was not a case dedicated to Constitutional interpretation which was brought up by an appeal.
Also, i don't see how anyone can believe that comments made by a Supreme Court Justice can automatically overturn the work of the founders.
Anti-rights activists will then say people's rights came ONLY from state Constitutions.
In doing some quick research i've found the Virginia Constitution , adopted before the U.S. Constitution, and amended several times afterwords, clearly says that the rights listed in this document are not to imply the citizens do not have rights from other sources.
Anti-rights activists will then point to the incident where James Madison wanted to pass an Amendment that would FORCE states to adhere to the Bill of Rights. (James Madison's 5th proposal)
Anti-rights activists will say that since this idea was rejected, this means the founders rejected the idea of states being restricted by First Amendment rights.
These people , in my opinion, over look the obvious, that this would lay a burden of enforcement on the Federal government.
At that time, the idea of the Federal government getting involved in daily religious events would have been unthinkable at that time even though too many people are used to that idea today.
These people have enough of a foot hold, ...a connection of loop holes and grey areas, to cause serious damage,
...and their views have been dominant for years.
I agree with the founders of this nation that we have "inalienable" rights, that means NO ONE takes them away.
I agree with the founders that ALL government power comes from the people.
I also agree with Thomas Jefferson that all three branches of government are equal and that our interpretation of rights through Congress is just as powerful as the President's and the Supreme Court's.
we are NOT subjects of the Supreme Court.
We can no longer afford to allow legal groups to present the cases they want to make the decisions they want.
It is imperative that we start digging through Supreme Court cases and start making our own conclusions and directions.
If we allow people to interpret everything for us, we are gong to lose everything.
In my opinion we need to, FIRST, start pushing to create an Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to all state and city governments.
THEN we need to nullify the corrupt 14th Amendment.