SCOTUS extends Heller to the states

Originally posted by sh76
Oh, and for all No1's pratting about the 9th Amendment, he apparently stopped right there and never got to the 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, someone explain to me how that allows the SC to strike do ...[text shortened]... te acts by means other than declaring that they are inconsistent with the Constitution, please.

Do you understand the difference between a "power" and a "right"? Apparently not.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
so - regarding those Framers who were opposed to including any Bill of Rights in the Constitution - what was their intent? - did they not want to give the Supreme Court any grounds at all to overturn state or local laws? - or did they believe that the Supreme Court would choose to abide by some sort of unstated common law when making these decisions?

The Framers who opposed the inclusion of a BOR thought it unnecessary and perhaps dangerous to enumerate Natural Rights as I have already pointed out.

Originally posted by sh76
In spite of your consistent posing of strawmen to represent me in your fantasy land, I have never once said that rights are limited to those stated in the Constitution. I stated that the federal government and its courts have no authority to force the states to recognize non-enumerated rights. The federal courts have only the authority over the states that are ...[text shortened]... s get their authority to bind states to something other than what is stated in the Constitution.

I've already dealt with this non-objection. An unenforceable right is an absurdity.

Read these words carefully as you seem to have missed them in the 5 posts I've used them in: THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

I'll await (in vain I'm sure) for you to address the point that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment clearly meant to "federalize" the People's rights.

Originally posted by sh76
Federalist 78 discussed judicial review though it certainly was not a non-controversial issue until and even after Marbury v. Madison. Authority of the Supreme Court to bind the states wasn't asserted by the SC until much later. It has never been asserted by the SC other than in the context that the SC can declare state actions un-CONSTITUTION-al; not unnatural ...[text shortened]... hey damn well please would have been completely unpalatable to the states (and still would be).

No, they use a substantive reading of a procedural clause i.e. the Due Process Clause to get to the same result. I'm just being more intellectually honest and consistent with the Framers' intent. That the States wanted to continue to exercise the illegimate power to violate their people's natural rights was not considered to be terribly dispositive by the authors of the 14th Amendment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've already dealt with this non-objection. An unenforceable right is an absurdity.

Read these words carefully as you seem to have missed them in the 5 posts I've used them in: THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

I'll await (in vain I'm sure) for you to address the point that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment clearly meant to "federalize" the People's rights.

I've addressed it 10 times already. The 14th Amendment meant to federalize Constitutional rights. Constitutional rights are rights in the Constitution. You disagree. Fine. Whatever. I'm tired of re-hashing the same thing 1,000 times.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you understand the difference between a "power" and a "right"? Apparently not.

A power to decide whether to enforce or abrogate a right is a power.

Originally posted by sh76
A power to decide whether to enforce or abrogate a right is a power.

You cannot "abrogate" a right.

Originally posted by sh76
I've addressed it 10 times already. The 14th Amendment meant to federalize Constitutional rights. Constitutional rights are rights in the Constitution. You disagree. Fine. Whatever. I'm tired of re-hashing the same thing 1,000 times.

And the Ninth Amendment means what in your view?