What would our forefathers do if...
- Thread starter DBCooper
- Start date
Actually it proves the opposite of the intent you suggested. You suggested that Congress intended heavy weapons to be supplied by private citizens. A letter of Marque is a Congressional commission authorizing a private citizen to own heavy weapons and only in a naval capacity in order supplement Naval interests. So it fails on both parts. A. it proves that Congress did not receive nor expect to receive heavy military weapons from private citizens and B. It requires citizens who would want to own and use such weaponry to have a Congressional warrant for said weaponry.
Yes it does. Under the ESEA and ESSA Laws the Federal Government is required to guarantee equal access to educational facilities to everyone and to guarantee all those attending the protections of due process of law and rights under the Constitution. Ergo if School shootings interfere with the rights of children to seek education the Federal Government is REQUIRED to take action.
That is exactly how it worked. The government commissioned smelters to make cannons for the army. While there was no regulation to prevent a private citizen from owning a cannon you can damn sure bet there would of have been had someone used a cannon to kill people in public every 27 hours or so.
Also the Letter of Marque is definitely and commission from Congress. Without it if you go outfit your ship with cannon and raid other merchants they called you a pirate and hung you.
Lucky to hit a target.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
How so?
So protecting someones Constitutional rights does not mean protecting their lives?
Where does the Constitution contain a right to life? Your constitutional rights restrict government actions (it cannot abridge your free speech, religion, etc.). There is no way government can guarantee your life. It can only punish if you are murdered.
Trying to protect your life within a state involving no federal issues is left to state government, not federal. The Florida shooter, for example, will be charged and tried in a Florida state court.
The most fundamental right of all dumb ass. Try the Preamble, and the XIV Amendment asshole.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Irish Exit
Verified User
In 1780, the country's first mass murderer got 40 lashes before they hung him. This would suggest punishment was more their thing.
When a poster has run out of substantive information (or does not know constitutional law) they turn to insults and foul language.
First, the preamble is just an introduction. There are no legally enforceable rights in it. If you disagree, name a court case based on the preamble.
Second, the 14th Amendment does not say you have the right to life It says the state cannot deprive you of life without due process; so they can take your life if they use the proper procedures. In that case the government is taking your life, not protecting it.
Fucking idiot. spin spin spin. There is only 8 cases that cite the Preamble you stupid fuck.
https://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm
Why is you guys NEVER check your facts before posting shit out of your ass. It makes you look so fucking stupid.
Your fucking bullshit interpretation of the XIV Amendment is not what the SCOTUS states. The SCOTUS has ruled that the XIV Amendment incorporates all the Amendments to the Constitution to all laws passed in the U.S. and its territories. Ergo with the XIV Amendment the VIII Amendments right to life that does not include the any mention of State action is the standard. So again you fucking fail.
No, a letter of marque is authorization to capture enemy ships.
It has nothing at all to do with heavy weapons.
The point of a letter of marque is just that if captured, you are not hung as a pirate.
It shows you deserve POW status instead.
Almost all the cannon used in the American Revolution was privately purchased and owned.
No authorization is ever needed for that.
You misunderstand the Constitution.
The rights listed in the constitution are not protected BY the federal government, but are protected FROM the federal government.
All of the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the federal government, and preventing the federal government from having any jurisdiction at all in those listed cases.
Only then were states willing to sign on to the Constitution, and join the federation.
Wrong.
There was no government at all, there were only rebels, and all the cannon were privately contracted.
In fact, the founders wanted no standing army at all, and all troops accessible to the federal government were to be provided, provisioned, and supplied by the states.
They were only on temporary loan to the federal government.
That was even true during the Civil War.
It was not until WWII that states started playing less of a role.
But draft boards for example, are still state run.
You anger increases as your lack of knowledge of constitutional law becomes more evident. It is not my interpretation but established law.
Even if all the amendments did apply to the states that does not change the point of the conversation--that government cannot guarantee you a right to life. Obviously the federal government could not guarantee the lives of those killed in Parkland and that matter is under state jurisdiction being heard in the state courts.
So, "you guys" (whoever that is) are the ones who need to check your facts. You got nothing correct in your post. If you would exchange civil debate we might all learn something from this message board. Any idiot can cuss and insult others.
I don't think you even read the https://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm link you posted. I said there are no legally enforceable rights in the Preamble. One of the cases in your link (Jacobson v. MA) says "The only case in which the Supreme Court has directly addressed a claim based on the Preamble. In this case the court examined the Constitutional rights of Jacobson, and rejected his claim to a personal right, derived from then Preamble, to the "blessings of liberty". It took up the issue but said he had no personal rights from the Preamble.
The SC never ruled the 14th Amendment incorporates all amendments and laws passed in the U. S. The incorporation process applies only to the rights in the Bill of Rights. That was done on a case-by-case basis between 1925-2010. They had to decide if each right restricted the states the same as it restricts the federal government. Federal laws would already be applicable in all the states by definition. The other amendments apply as written--some apply to the federal government and some apply only to the states; for example, the 14th says "no state."
All the rights still have not been made applicable to the states: quartering of troops, grand jury indictment, jury trial in civil cases, excessive fines, and a few others. For example, several states do not use a grand jury but the federal government has to because the 5th Amendment requires it.
The 2nd Amendment was not incorporated until 2010, so no court decision ever ruled all the Bill of Rights applies to the states although most of them were incorporated over time.