Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
A conversation I had on Facebook.
Doug, if the first 10 amendments are Rights, does the supremacy clause dictate that they are actually federal laws, ,
And how would I defend the 2nd amendment away from the notion that it's a federal law that has precedent over state laws for guns?
Douglas
Supremacy Clause applies only to laws of the United States made within federal authority. There is a debate over federal authority regarding our rights. While the preamble of the Bill of Rights is clear in establishing that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, some scholars, and case law, has determined the equal protection clause and due process clause of the 14th Amendment allows an incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States, and that the federal government must be the enforcer.
Douglas
I disagree with that doctrine.
Federalist 45 by James Madison is clear that if there must be laws regarding our rights, only local government may make laws regarding them, not the federal government. Federal Government was created for external issues.
If the States act tyrannical, then it is our job to straighten it out.
I asked because a lady in debating is suggesting the. Supremacy clause trumps states rights regarding guns
She thinks the Feds SUPERCEDE states on gun rights because of supremacy clause,
Douglas
Supremacy Clause language is clear: http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/04/corona-constitution-class-supremacy.html
That said, on federal issues like immigration: http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/03/sanctuary-cities-violate-supremacy.html
I understand what she's saying, considering no other amendments were Laws after the 10th amendment and the finishing process of the constitution, but I need to read MADISONS notes
Douglas
Again, Madison also lays it out in Federalist 45: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
I'll check it out. She brought up the assault weapons ban
But The Feds acted unconstitutionally in that, u agree?
Douglas
Read august 23 for supremacy clause: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Shall not be Infringed means that every single gun law by the federal government is unconstitutional. None of their business.
Even assault rifle bans by the Feds, right?
Douglas
Yep.
Douglas
Besides, "assault rifle" is an inaccurate term. The assault rifles they claim must be banned are no different than my semi-auto hunting rifles, save for some cosmetic additions that make them look scary.
An assault rifle in a military man's mind is one that may be changed from single shot to semi-auto to automatic with the flip of a switch. Automatic weapons are already banned. That said, even the ban of fully automatic firearms by the federal government is unconsititutional.
Thanks Doug ,
I really appreciate the confirmation. These liberals are so intrigued by the Feds commanding control over everything
Douglas
The word "assault" is a nothing word. If I hit you in the face with my fist, it's an assault, so guess what? My fist is now technically an assault weapon. It's all a play on language.
That's what I figured
Douglas
My next book should be available in days, follows the path it took to take us from a constitutional republic to a liberal democracy. Watch for it.
It's titled 7 Worst Constitutional Liars
These libs I debate are so hypnotized by the Feds
Awesome!
Definitely let me know,
I'll tweet it and Facebook it
I've tried getting you on the chris plante show,
Douglas
They believe big government is good, free speech is bad (and hate speech), and capitalism is all about giving control to big corporations. in other words, they've become Marxists.
No comments:
Post a Comment