Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[Kuros]

You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?

Firstly, the right to life and to defend the same are UNALIENABLE.

Secondly, have you ever heard of the blackmarket? Not even your friends at the KGB were able able to control it.

So STFU.

,

Take a deep breath, calm down. It was legal question.

Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms? What is/are the legal obstacle(s) to a state banning all personal possession of firearms?

It might yet be able to, but probably not.

The main obstacle is MacDonald v. Chicago.

Holding: The Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms in self defense applies against state and local governments as well as the federal government.

The remaining question is whether a state banning ALL firearms is inconsistent with the protections of the 2nd Amendment. It probably would be, although strict firearm regulation and the banning of sophisticated assault rifles or grenade launchers would almost definitely be upheld.

 

[JoeB131]

Since the Senate has to be the one to approve such a change, and these guys have a lot invested in their continuing re-election machine, it's sort of a moot point.

I think the 17th Amendment bastardized the notion of the Senate, which was supposed to be the "States" house as opposed to the House of Representatives, which was to be the "People's House".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not since 1912. The people and the states spoke. You don't believe in the amendment process.

 

[JoeB131]

Not since 1912. The people and the states spoke. You don't believe in the amendment process.

Well, I believe it exists, unlike magic sky pixies from Kolob.

Just because an amendment was made, doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Do you think that the Minnesota Legislature ever would have sent Al Franken to Washington? Of course not, they'd have taken the process seriously. The voters obviously didn't.

 

[bripat9643]

The Founders were wiser men than the progressives. Nuff said.

The Founders are not better judges of what happens today than we are, especially after we consult the Founders' thoughts and opinions.

^
(Important: The Founders would actually agree with this statement)

ROFL! No they wouldn't. The Founding Fathers were far wiser and more intelligent than every single politician in office today. Furthermore, they were men of honor. They weren't a gang of conniving power hungry weasels.

 

[bripat9643]

Firstly, the right to life and to defend the same are UNALIENABLE.

Secondly, have you ever heard of the blackmarket? Not even your friends at the KGB were able able to control it.

So STFU.

,

Take a deep breath, calm down. It was legal question.

Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms? What is/are the legal obstacle(s) to a state banning all personal possession of firearms?

It might yet be able to, but probably not.

The main obstacle is MacDonald v. Chicago.

Holding: The Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms in self defense applies against state and local governments as well as the federal government.

The remaining question is whether a state banning ALL firearms is inconsistent with the protections of the 2nd Amendment. It probably would be, although strict firearm regulation and the banning of sophisticated assault rifles or grenade launchers would almost definitely be upheld.

Wrong. According to the incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights is a fundamental component of "due process" as mandated by the 14th Amendment. The states are required to respect the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. That includes the 2nd Amendment. That's what SCOTUS has ruled.

How could "strict firearm regulation" be consistent with the 2nd amendment? So-called "sophisticated assault rifles" are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles that millions of hunters own.

 

[bripat9643]

Not since 1912. The people and the states spoke. You don't believe in the amendment process.

It's better than the Obama process that simply ignores the Constitution. The people were duped when they passed the 17th Amendment.

 

[flacaltenn]

Put me down as "pondering the question".

Great arguments BTW.. I TEND to favor repealing the Amendment because of the increasing need for states to defend themselves against unfunded mandates and 10th Amendment erosion.

Problem is accountibility is far too removed -- having to punish state legislators for chit that happens in D.C.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I didn't miss the point, I just disagree. I don't want a state legislature deciding who gets to represent my state in the senate. That would be gov't deciding who is in gov't, as opposed to citizens deciding who is in gov't. That is a scenario which will invite corruption and cronyism.

So when Obama appoints a Supreme Court justice, what is that?

 

[Listening]

No, I didn't miss the point, I just disagree. I don't want a state legislature deciding who gets to represent my state in the senate. That would be gov't deciding who is in gov't, as opposed to citizens deciding who is in gov't. That is a scenario which will invite corruption and cronyism.

I must have misunderstood your post. My apologies.

You have a right to your POV and you have stated it.

However, your last sentence extends into your reasoning. And I can only wonder how it is that you don't see the corruption and cronyism that exists at the federal level today.

Elections seems to be a great deal about money and corporate support.

And that is better than what ?

 

[Cuyo]

The Founders were wiser men than the progressives. Nuff said.

So do you consider yourself a proponent of everything that was legal in their day?

Think chains.

 

[Kuros]

Take a deep breath, calm down. It was legal question.

Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms? What is/are the legal obstacle(s) to a state banning all personal possession of firearms?

It might yet be able to, but probably not.

The main obstacle is MacDonald v. Chicago.

Holding: The Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms in self defense applies against state and local governments as well as the federal government.

The remaining question is whether a state banning ALL firearms is inconsistent with the protections of the 2nd Amendment. It probably would be, although strict firearm regulation and the banning of sophisticated assault rifles or grenade launchers would almost definitely be upheld.

Wrong. According to the incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights is a fundamental component of "due process" as mandated by the 14th Amendment. The states are required to respect the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. That includes the 2nd Amendment. That's what SCOTUS has ruled.

How could "strict firearm regulation" be consistent with the 2nd amendment? So-called "sophisticated assault rifles" are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles that millions of hunters own.

I know what the incorporation doctrine is. Have you even read MacDonald v. Chicago?

Can you point to the language where the ruling delineates how far the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the state? All the opinion does is (a) incorporate the 2nd Amendment and (b) extends the ruling of DC v. Heller

That means some sort of firearm is permitted for defense of the home. That still leaves open all kinds of strict regulations, such as banning the carrying of firearms on public thoroughfares or in automobiles, and even outright banning automatic weapons.

As I said, an outright ban would probably be unconstitutional. Note that MacDonald didn't overturn Chicago's firearm ban, though. It merely remanded the decision. Hence the 'probably.'

 

[Kuros]

The Founders were wiser men than the progressives. Nuff said.

The Founders are not better judges of what happens today than we are, especially after we consult the Founders' thoughts and opinions.

^
(Important: The Founders would actually agree with this statement)

ROFL! No they wouldn't. The Founding Fathers were far wiser and more intelligent than every single politician in office today. Furthermore, they were men of honor. They weren't a gang of conniving power hungry weasels.

This position isn't tenable.

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article Four of the United States Constitution, Section 2, Clause 3:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due

Please tell me how the 13th Amendment of the Constitution was necessary if the Founding Fathers were better judges of what was necessary in the 1860s than those who lived during that time.

 

[bripat9643]

Please tell me how the 13th Amendment of the Constitution was necessary if the Founding Fathers were better judges of what was necessary in the 1860s than those who lived during that time.

The Founding Father's made one mistake. Everything the men of 1860 did was criminal. Lincoln was a dictator who destroyed this country.

 

[paperview]

No, I didn't miss the point, I just disagree. I don't want a state legislature deciding who gets to represent my state in the senate. That would be gov't deciding who is in gov't, as opposed to citizens deciding who is in gov't. That is a scenario which will invite corruption and cronyism.

So when Obama appoints a Supreme Court justice, what is that?

Constitutional.

 

[paperview]

Please tell me how the 13th Amendment of the Constitution was necessary if the Founding Fathers were better judges of what was necessary in the 1860s than those who lived during that time.

The Founding Father's made one mistake. Everything the men of 1860 did was criminal. Lincoln was a dictator who destroyed this country.

If he 'destroyed' this country, then how the hell are you here, complaining about it?

 

[nolebrakai]

this is a obvious NO, why would we allow cronyism to be nurtured further in our system. It just makes no sense why we would allow this seems most politicians approval ratings are in the shittr. Just seem a YES vote would lead to more political gamesmanship and buffoonery. Do we really need more disfunction? I prefer We the Peope make these choices.

 

[J.E.D]

No, I didn't miss the point, I just disagree. I don't want a state legislature deciding who gets to represent my state in the senate. That would be gov't deciding who is in gov't, as opposed to citizens deciding who is in gov't. That is a scenario which will invite corruption and cronyism.

So when Obama appoints a Supreme Court justice, what is that?

Irrelevant to the discussion. That's what that is.

 

[J.E.D]

No, I didn't miss the point, I just disagree. I don't want a state legislature deciding who gets to represent my state in the senate. That would be gov't deciding who is in gov't, as opposed to citizens deciding who is in gov't. That is a scenario which will invite corruption and cronyism.

I must have misunderstood your post. My apologies.

You have a right to your POV and you have stated it.

However, your last sentence extends into your reasoning. And I can only wonder how it is that you don't see the corruption and cronyism that exists at the federal level today.

Elections seems to be a great deal about money and corporate support.

And that is better than what ?

No problem. I respect your POV as well. Maybe I don't fully understand your reasoning. I understand that money leads to corruption. The current system that the SC has allowed is definitely one that by it's nature will lead to corruption. I just don't see how having elected officials electing elected officials will lead to less corruption.

 

[Listening]

No problem. I respect your POV as well. Maybe I don't fully understand your reasoning. I understand that money leads to corruption. The current system that the SC has allowed is definitely one that by it's nature will lead to corruption. I just don't see how having elected officials electing elected officials will lead to less corruption.

There is no guarantee it won't.

The issue here is a structural one.

This is about local control, or in this case states powers. The idea is to preserve the right of Michigan to spend it's money on roads while Colorado may want to spend more on education. It is their business. And Washington D.C. has nothing to say about it.

If the people of Michigan want to change things (to spending more on schools...) then they can take care of that internally. And if I live in Michigan and don't like what they are doing there, I can move to a state that is better suited to me (I left CA to move to Kansas in large part because of schools).

It was never intended that the country be homogonized on every issue.

But with the loss of appointed senators, state legislatures are much less powerful than they would otherwise be.

That there can be corruption at the state level is true, but it seems like there would be a better chance of less of it when they are closer to home (both my state rep and my state senator know me by name.....my federal rep knows my face and my two federal senators don't know I exist). They (the local ones) know I am watching.