Just to clarify here: You believe it was the framers' intent that the restrictions placed on government in the Constitution were only intended to apply at the federal level?
For example, you believe that if the State of Georgia decided that none of its citizens should be allowed to own any sort of firearm, that the framers thought that would be perfectly fine since it wasn't the feds doing it?
The states were sovereign and had their own governments. The federal government was separate.. it had selected powers that were supreme over states. All other powers were left to the states.
The federal government doesn't regulate guns, but states can do so according to their governments. For example the state of Georgia could require every family household to own a gun. These state laws would be up to the people of the states.
For example the state of Georgia could require every family household to own a gun. These state laws would be up to the people of the states.
Oh, you tried to sneak this one in there. Do you really think I'm that stupid? Answer the question I asked instead of trying to change the premise.
Yes, what you say is true.
However, if that law instead said that no citizen of Georgia could own a gun, that would not be allowed because of the Second Amendment.
Look, man, I get it. I'm a federalist too. The states gave up way too much authority.
But that doesn't mean what you think it means. The Constitution does two things: It outlines the scope of the Federal Government by naming exactly what it can do, and it outlines restrictions placed on any government by naming exactly what they can't do. Only after that does it say "plus if we forgot anything, that doesn't mean the feds get to grab for it, it's reserved for the states".
But that only happens after Federal Supremacy is already outlined and that Constitutional restrictions are the Supreme Law of the Land. States can't make laws that override federal law, nor can they make laws that violate the restrictions of the Constitution. They can only go further. They can make laws that expand on federal law, and do, but only as long as it doesn't infringe onto the rights outlined in the Constitution.
Now, this gets a little weird because many states will echo federal law so that they can prosecute someone for something if the feds choose not to or if it's not within federal jurisdiction, e.g. wholly contained within a state. For example, murder is illegal both federally and at the state level. If the feds don't charge someone for a murder because it was just two neighbors fighting and there was no conspiracy and nothing crossed state lines, etc, then the state charges them. Bu that isn't overriding federal law, it's expanding it into an area in which the feds don't have jurisdiction.
If instead there was a murder that took place inside a state that was perpetrated by a serial killer who had killed in three states, the state where he is finally captured doesn't get to say "Sorry, feds, but that's not a crime here so you don't get to prosecute him. He's a free man as long as he stays in our state." The Federal Government has Supremacy in that case because the state would be attempting to override Federal law instead of supplement or expand it.
This very concept is actually the entire reason behind the Constitution so severely limiting and explicitly naming the powers of the federal government. They knew the Federal Government had to be able to supersede state law when necessary, so they tried to make it as difficult as possible by applying lots of restrictions and saying "These are the only cases where the federal government has authority".
But in those cases, the Federal Authority is absolute. Our problem today is that the cases where the Feds have claimed jurisdiction is basically all of them and we're into clown world.
Lay it at the feet of the 17th amendment. The state governments no longer have anyone protecting their interests in Congress.
That's a completely of opposite view of the bill of rights than what Madison and Jefferson had. But we are smarter than they were.
Just to clarify here: You believe it was the framers' intent that the restrictions placed on government in the Constitution were only intended to apply at the federal level?
For example, you believe that if the State of Georgia decided that none of its citizens should be allowed to own any sort of firearm, that the framers thought that would be perfectly fine since it wasn't the feds doing it?
The states were sovereign and had their own governments. The federal government was separate.. it had selected powers that were supreme over states. All other powers were left to the states.
The federal government doesn't regulate guns, but states can do so according to their governments. For example the state of Georgia could require every family household to own a gun. These state laws would be up to the people of the states.
Oh, you tried to sneak this one in there. Do you really think I'm that stupid? Answer the question I asked instead of trying to change the premise.
Yes, what you say is true.
However, if that law instead said that no citizen of Georgia could own a gun, that would not be allowed because of the Second Amendment.
Look, man, I get it. I'm a federalist too. The states gave up way too much authority.
But that doesn't mean what you think it means. The Constitution does two things: It outlines the scope of the Federal Government by naming exactly what it can do, and it outlines restrictions placed on any government by naming exactly what they can't do. Only after that does it say "plus if we forgot anything, that doesn't mean the feds get to grab for it, it's reserved for the states".
But that only happens after Federal Supremacy is already outlined and that Constitutional restrictions are the Supreme Law of the Land. States can't make laws that override federal law, nor can they make laws that violate the restrictions of the Constitution. They can only go further. They can make laws that expand on federal law, and do, but only as long as it doesn't infringe onto the rights outlined in the Constitution.
Now, this gets a little weird because many states will echo federal law so that they can prosecute someone for something if the feds choose not to or if it's not within federal jurisdiction, e.g. wholly contained within a state. For example, murder is illegal both federally and at the state level. If the feds don't charge someone for a murder because it was just two neighbors fighting and there was no conspiracy and nothing crossed state lines, etc, then the state charges them. Bu that isn't overriding federal law, it's expanding it into an area in which the feds don't have jurisdiction.
If instead there was a murder that took place inside a state that was perpetrated by a serial killer who had killed in three states, the state where he is finally captured doesn't get to say "Sorry, feds, but that's not a crime here so you don't get to prosecute him. He's a free man as long as he stays in our state." The Federal Government has Supremacy in that case because the state would be attempting to override Federal law instead of supplement or expand it.
This very concept is actually the entire reason behind the Constitution so severely limiting and explicitly naming the powers of the federal government. They knew the Federal Government had to be able to supersede state law when necessary, so they tried to make it as difficult as possible by applying lots of restrictions and saying "These are the only cases where the federal government has authority".
But in those cases, the Federal Authority is absolute. Our problem today is that the cases where the Feds have claimed jurisdiction is basically all of them and we're into clown world.
Lay it at the feet of the 17th amendment. The state governments no longer have anyone protecting their interests in Congress.
Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century https://www.amazon.com/dp/1596981490/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_.6B1EbD9RBYSD
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307405761/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_y-B1EbCT2BYFN
https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/podcast-episode-247-what-is-incorporation/