On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > The 'Founding Fathers' full well intended an emasculated
> > federal power, with very restricted funding (basically tarrif
> > and excise taxes, and little else); very expressly delimited
> > powers, and much retention of local control.
> I can see that the framers intended the Fed Gov to be emasculated, but
> it's hard to imagine that they intended it to be _this_ emasculated.
Oh .. probably did -- the Magna Carta was a British 'States Rights'
document -- ceding control away from the central omnipotent Monarch
to the more local dukedoms. The re-growth of strong central
authority after the Restoration, the decimation of Scottish
independence (and leadership) 30 years before 1776 had to concern
the North Americal colonists about the evils of a strong central
government.
It
> must never have occurred to them that the "inalienable" rights granted
> by the federal Constitution would be trampled by the states.
Isn't 'inalienable' present only in the Declaration of Independence,
and not the Constitution? Oh -- there is the recent 'little
laboratories of Democracy' in the States analysis; but this is a
recent justifying invention of the federal Judiciary.
It is easier to not fear so much a local official subject to local
recall and correction.
<snip>
> This answers a question for me. With such a clear 2nd Amendment, it
> puzzled me why every gun control law enacted by a state was not met with
> a federal lawsuit.
TANSTAAFL. And, You need a good set of facts to go after a bad law.
The city of Cincinnati has received an education as to its
limitation of Concealed Carry recently with this text; the Texas
(5th federal apellate circuit) case opinion passing on a state court
opinion challenging Lautenberg in like fashion is expected
imminently.
-- Russ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:30:15 EDT