3 ms·

It makes no difference what the meaning of the amendment is. None of the Bill of Rights actually amends the Constitution. There is no clause in the original d

It makes no difference what the meaning of the amendment is. None of the Bill of Rights actually amends the Constitution. There is no clause in the original document that gives Congress the authority to make any law regarding individual criminal acts occurring within a state.

hga 17y ago
EDIT: the below was based on a misunderstanding of what naturalethic was saying, it is "no longer operative". You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. And the 14th Amendment, which enforces various parts of the Constitution and its Amendments on the states (and therefore has been used WRT "individual criminal acts occurring within a state"), which is the subject of McDonald v. Chicago for which the oral arguments were held earlier this week.
- anamax 17y ago
  > You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V No. He's using an enumerated powers argument. He's claiming that the Federal govt can only do things that were authorized by the constitution and that none of the things mentioned in the BoR were things that the Federal govt can do according. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses say otherwise. The 14th, which isn't part of the BoR, says that states are bound in some way by something. The first cases, which had to do with state govt officials silencing, disarming, and killing freed slaves, concluded that the states weren't bound at all by the bill of rights. That's the precedent that Chicago is pushing.
  - hga 17y ago
    Ah, yes, I should have realized that, especially as someone who considers Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) a decision that will live in infamy. On the other hand, it has been argued that prior to the 14th, the 2nd Amendment ... pierced the states rights veil, you might say, although again that's a restriction on states, not individuals, akin to the requirement that they have a "Republican Form of Government" (small r republican, of course :-).

hga 17y ago

EDIT: the below was based on a misunderstanding of what naturalethic was saying, it is "no longer operative". You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. And the 14th Amendment, which enforces various parts of the Constitution and its Amendments on the states (and therefore has been used WRT "individual criminal acts occurring within a state"), which is the subject of McDonald v. Chicago for which the oral arguments were held earlier this week.

anamax 17y ago
> You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V No. He's using an enumerated powers argument. He's claiming that the Federal govt can only do things that were authorized by the constitution and that none of the things mentioned in the BoR were things that the Federal govt can do according. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses say otherwise. The 14th, which isn't part of the BoR, says that states are bound in some way by something. The first cases, which had to do with state govt officials silencing, disarming, and killing freed slaves, concluded that the states weren't bound at all by the bill of rights. That's the precedent that Chicago is pushing.
- hga 17y ago
  Ah, yes, I should have realized that, especially as someone who considers Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) a decision that will live in infamy. On the other hand, it has been argued that prior to the 14th, the 2nd Amendment ... pierced the states rights veil, you might say, although again that's a restriction on states, not individuals, akin to the requirement that they have a "Republican Form of Government" (small r republican, of course :-).