|
Real0ne -> RE: Gun rights vs responsibilities by the government (7/4/2011 10:57:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
If you read the words of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they made it very clear that the right to bear arms was intended as a individual not a state right. For example Federalist paper #46
but the courts rule this joint and they said your interpretation is bullshit!
Again here is the spies case where the supreme court and the states made it perfectly clear that the 10 amendments of the bill of rights that americans hold so near and dear as their individual and personal rights RESERVED, NOT GRANTED by some flunky assed state to themselves.
A reserved right is "unalienable" hence unassailable by the "LEGITIMATE" guv power structure and outside the jurisdiction of the constitution.
the courts are UNDER the constitution, with the understanding that the courts would "recognize" the individuals "unalienable" rights, and the recognition of "UNALIENABLE RIGHTS" have been completely abolished by the legislature without the consent of the people.
You have no remedy without recognition by a US Court priest in the black rode.
The state employees take an oath to uphold and enforce the sovereignty of the state NOT the sovereignty of the individual!
A logical fallacy would be that a population of slaves have any legitimate authority operate a sovereign state yet that is the kind of double-think people are faced with today.
Now how was this feat of magic accomplished by the guv? Well read the spies and abrahamson case.
quote:
(123 u. s. 131)
THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1
Ex parte SPIES and others. (October 2 J, 1887.)
ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT.
That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since. Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247; Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91; Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552; Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580.
It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment.
In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.
The objections are, in brief, (1) that a statute of the state as construed by the court deprived the petitioners of a trial by an impartial jury; and (2) that Spies was compelled to give evidence against himself. Before considering whether the constitution of the United States has the effect which is claimed, it is proper to inquire whether the federal questions relied on in fact do arise on the face of this record.
as you can see that you do not have any rights as you think!
All you have is privileges and immunities as granted by the state precisely in the same manner as the king grants privileges and immunities to HIS vassals!
Just want to clear that up before we get to far into any rights matters.
You have NONE!
None that that the government will recognize.
The 14th amendment wiped them out.
Therefore the state can interpret "their" legolese any way they want.
|
|
|
|
