quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
As far as the 2nd amendment goes it does apply to the states, I wish the gun lobby would actually pick up a book and read, instead of spouting nonsense. The 2nd amendment says people have the right to bear arms, but it does not say that right is unencumbered, all rights have limits to them.

quote:

A flood of money from residents of 'blue' states kept Helms in office, as did those funds accomplish the task in a number of other states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


Please learn to read. Comprehension would help, too.

The perceptive reader would have noticed that I 'picked on' Helms as much as anyone, what I found issue with was 'picking on' every resident of the state.

That is your assignment for the next two weeks. Read, and let sink in what was actually said. I am being optimistic in allowing two weeks for the task, I realize.

quote:

Three of the four (Helms) elections were close to the wire

quote:

NY state is the biggest whore of all in this regard, but go ahead and pick on NC if you feel the need to demonstrate ignorance.

quote:

"As far as "picking" on NC, I lived there during his "reign". So I have the right to pick on him if I so desire."

quote:

Jesse Helms was repeatedly elected by an incessant flood of money from residents from 'blue' states

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

I lived in Cali just after Reagan's reign (in that state), but I don't entirely hate Cali. as you apparently do NC.

Different understanding and comprehension and perspective, I suppose.

Who did more harm to the country?

Is the situation the country is in now more attributable to Helms or to Reagan?

Don't hurt yourself, sweetie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

On the 10th, we don't simply ignore it... Where in the Constitution does the authority to create a police department appear? It doesn't, they didn't exist at that time, and are among those things reserved to the states.

Thanks to the 'states rights' extremists though, the 10th does have a pretty shabby reputation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not stop state governments, local governments and school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution. The legislation also says that the Tenth Amendment, which says powers not reserved for the federal government belong to the states, prohibits court rulings that would seek to apply the First Amendment to state and local officials.

This is true. Provided that we're in 1865.

Oh, it's 2013? The 14th Amendment applied most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states (the only ones that haven't been are the quartering of soldiers, the grand jury requirement, and the right to a jury in a civil trial).

Additionally, there's a very old Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review of state laws and court decisions (when they fell within the federal purview). I believe it's Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, and it's a case that came out of Virginia. A very important case, too...can you imagine what the United States would look like if each state was free to disregard whichever laws it felt like? My first instinct is to say...not very united.

And the 10th Amendment? Under current law, it's utterly meaningless. I do have some problem with that...it's a Constitutional Amendment, for fuck's sake. We shouldn't simply ignore it. There are a number of powers that are nowhere in the Constitution that should be left to the individual states to take the solution that they feel best fits their needs (regulating health care, for one), and the state can deal with the consequences of their decisions in those areas.

As for this proposal...without knowing very much about North Carolina politics, I'd imagine that it was just done for posturing. Those 9 legislators can go home in 2014 or 2016 (or whenever their next election is) and tell their constituents "We tried. The atheists stopped us from protecting your religious rights." And they'll probably be re-elected. I know that if my local state representative tried something like that, they'd get re-elected (though not with my vote).

Actually, the authority to open a police department comes from the police powers inherent in government - the power to take actions to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the citizens.

Everything the federal government does that seems like it would be an excellent candidate for the 10th Amendment gets upheld under the taxing and spending clauses or the commerce clause. It's a dead letter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

When the elected official government of the state introduces official documentation to accomplish something, it is standard grammar to use the name of the state followed by a verb.

By politicos, yes. By those who posses a modicum of understanding of the simplest logic, no.

BTW, it was not THE "elected government official" of that state, but a few assembly persons. Pay attention.

quote:

It is understood as matter of common sense that not every single person in the state is doing (or even supporting) the action.

You ARE kidding, right?

This "red state" "blue state" thing has it that the entire state is judged and assigned contumely and subject to 'righteous indignation!,' as demonstrated here and innumerable other such like demonstrations and foot stomping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So how soon before we them try to re-invoke slavery ? How soon before we see police beating confessions, ALL minorities denied the vote ?

This isn't just about establishing religion. This is about tearing up the bill of rights and the rest of the amends.

A sort of constitutional secession.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Jesse Helms was repeatedly elected by an incessant flood of money from residents from 'blue' states

Interesting, understandable, and more than a little desperate stab at spin.

<snip>

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

Until passage of the 14th amendment, the constitution and the bill of rights did not apply to the states.

That was a constructed supreme court decision of the infamous marshal. Nowhere will you find that in any official writing. The 14th was never lawfully passed see the supreme court dyett case that I posted umteen times.

With passage of the 14th amendment the constitution and the bill of rights extended to the states, and that includes all the amendments.

No you a jury is not required at ALL civil trials, eminent domain overuled the 5th, you do not have the right to a grand jury indictment for any criminal offense, you do not have the right to claim a right under the 10th, no court has ever and will ever allow it in this prison camp.

The fact that the 1st says congress is meaningless, when you amend the constitution you change it. The original constitution did not allow women to vote, the 19th amendment gave them that right.

It was accepted by both men and women at the time. Women had full dowery rights and that was abolished now.

With the 14th amendment, the wording of the 1st doesn't matter at all, the founders might have meant it to mean only the federal government, but the passage of the 14th superceded that. Part of the reason the states rights types down south claim that still is because they claim the 14th amendment was illegal, since it was passed by carpetbagger legislatures (as they say, winner takes the spoils, sorry, Charlie, your side lost).
So might makes right is just fine and dandy with you?

As far as the 2nd amendment goes it does apply to the states, I wish the gun lobby would actually pick up a book and read, instead of spouting nonsense. The 2nd amendment says people have the right to bear arms, but it does not say that right is unencumbered, all rights have limits to them.

yeh thanks for pointing out the tyranny of the courts, reversing the understanding from negative as if to require positive coding for the infinite. Not the way it works, the peoples rights are not positive coded the governments authorities however are or at least are supposed to be, reversing it as it has been done as you have just acknowldged is despotism.

on the contrary it does say it is unencombered, that is what the words SHALL NOT BE infringed means.

Connecticut can pass gun control laws because the 2nd amendment only states you cannot totally ban people owning weapons,

thats not what the federal constitution says

but it doesn't say you have the right to any weapons you want.

yeh actually it does, they had big assed cannons and guess what....they are ARMS last time I checked

guns is a civil law term, arms is con law term

You cannot buy automatic weapons without a special license, that is difficult to get.

yeh with all that hassle I imagine its easier for people to simply make them

You cannot buy an RPG, you cannot buy a bazooka, because those are considered too dangerous for civilians to own.

yeh you have to go to pakistan or some free [from oppression] country to do that

States can and do decide if guns need to be registered, they can decide what kind of guns can be bought and where, and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court going back hundreds of years.

yeh thats the benefits of being a citizen and subject to the jurisdiction

As long as the state doesn't place an outright ban on any gun ownership, they otherwise have the right to decide other issues around guns, including carry permits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
What police powers? The 'hue and cry'? A 'constabulary'? The 'shire reeves'? Those had a lot more to do with protecting the King's assets than with a modern criminal justice system.
The first modern police departments were just a glimmer when the Constitution was drafted. The common good might have called for some sort of watch or citizen's patrol, but the notion of a full time job as city employees with a badge arresting criminals, simply isn't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution. But it wasn't unconstitutional when it was implemented, because it is one of the state's rights under the 10th.
I do agree that the 10th wasn't mean to be burdened with every bit of partisan pandering and grandstanding that comes down the pike, and I think your assessment of the NC type of 'legislation' is dead on.

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
The bill says the First Amendment only applies to the federal government and does not stop state governments, local governments and school districts from adopting measures that defy the Constitution. The legislation also says that the Tenth Amendment, which says powers not reserved for the federal government belong to the states, prohibits court rulings that would seek to apply the First Amendment to state and local officials.

The first amendment does clearly say "Congress" - it doesn't mention the states. The tenth amendment is pretty straight forward. While I strongly disagree with this legislation and feel it defies the spirit of the first amendment it does not appear to violate it. Whether that holds up in court remains to be seen. I find it ironic that the first amendment would bar state and local governments from violating it while the second amendment is not afforded the same protections. If you are going to disallow this new law in NC you must also declare all of the gun control laws (like the new one in Connecticut) invalid, as well... unless double standard is one of your fetishes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

What I find curious is where some right wing English starts a thread complaining about a political segment of the United States right wing politicioans considering a state religion, while the UK has a state church and state religion constitutionally established, compulsory religious instruction in that religion legislated in their schools, several dozens of the senior priests in this religion being members of their legislature, and with a hereditary monarch as their "pope."

This line of conduct is certainly the height of utter hypocrisy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
What police powers? The 'hue and cry'? A 'constabulary'? The 'shire reeves'? Those had a lot more to do with protecting the King's assets than with a modern criminal justice system.
The first modern police departments were just a glimmer when the Constitution was drafted. The common good might have called for some sort of watch or citizen's patrol, but the notion of a full time job as city employees with a badge arresting criminals, simply isn't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution. But it wasn't unconstitutional when it was implemented, because it is one of the state's rights under the 10th.
I do agree that the 10th wasn't mean to be burdened with every bit of partisan pandering and grandstanding that comes down the pike, and I think your assessment of the NC type of 'legislation' is dead on.

Police powers do come from Government. The US Constitution doesn't spell out what authorities or powers the State and local governments have. When I see a police car, it's either a local, County or State officer. As such, they don't have to be founded in the US Constitution.

I believe what you are looking for is implied here:

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

It's not explicitly stated that Government will field a police force to maintain order, but, it seems, that's the best way we've come up with over the years.