Chuck Norris re: Constitution

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by armedandsafe, Mar 8, 2010.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    'Nuff said!

    Pops
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2010
  2. graehaven

    graehaven Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,955
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Re: Chick Norris re: Constitution

    I'm sure he loves being called "Chick" Norris too. :D:D:D
  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    OOOOOOPS! Thank you, sir.:eek:

    Pops
  4. petesusn

    petesusn New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    614
    Location:
    San Joaquin Valley, Ca.
    Absolutely pops, "nuff said!
  5. user

    user Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,016
    Location:
    Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, We
    I've got news for you. The Constitution was abrogated a long, long time ago. Marbury v. Madison is celebrated for having established the principle of judicial review. But that's not what it did, and that principle was part of the Common Law a long time before that case. What that case did was to assert federal pre-eminency over the Constitution. The "Civil War" was over the Constitution, not slavery (who gets to decide what constitutes "property" within a state?), and cemented federal control over the document which created the United States. The United States won, and the states lost; the United States now only pays lip service to the Constitution as a sacred ritual but it now exists by virtue of its power, not authority. The Constitution means whatever the United States says it means. We've already lost that battle.

    If the United States were held to the confines of its Constitutional authority, there would be no Department of Education, no Health and Human Services, no Housing and Urban Development, no "National Guard", and no federal law enforcement.

    Here's another wrinkle to ponder: if the U.S.Sup.Ct. decides that the Second Amendment applies to the states, that's another nail in the coffin of the Tenth Amendment. The whole point of "selective incorporation" is what they call "substantive due process". Seems like a contradiction, doesn't it? It's either "substance" or it's "process" - and all the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees is that you will get the procedure that is appropriate for your case, not that you will have any particular set of rights under your state's constitution. Substantive due process and the application of the Bill of Rights to the states is a way of (1) undermining the ability of the people of any particular state to run their state the way they see fit; and (2) undermining the principle that the United States is strictly bound by the Bill of Rights.

    As to the Second Amendment, in particular, if there be incorporation, then it will be subject to the scheme of "reasonable regulation" discussed in Heller. Well, the Second Amendment doesn't say, "subject to reasonable regulation"; it says, "shall not be infringed." That clearly envisions parallel governmental structures, one of which is absolutely prohibited from making any restrictions at all upon the right to own, possess, and use firearms. Not only that, but since it's expressed in an amendment, which by definition supercedes anything to the contrary contained within the body of the document, the Second Amendment also constrains Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. On the other hand, the people of a particular state may regulate themselves any way they see fit. That's why I do not travel or do business in certain states; I think Maryland and New York have a perfect right to have all the gun control they want to, but I don't go to those states, and I don't do business directly with anyone who's located there.

    I would much rather see the U.S.Sup.Ct. decide that the Second Amendment is NOT incorporated, for the reason that all "selective incorporation" on the basis of "substantive due process" is in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

    Oh, and if you want to cut the cost of the federal government and reduce taxes, just require that they stay within the circle of authority defined by the Constitution. But you won't do it, because you, the people of the United States, have become dependant on federal programs and dollars. The United States has no authority to do social security, medicaid, or medicare, school lunches, educational grants, or to pay for road construction within a state.

    The federal government is doing all sorts of things it has no business doing; but it is NOT coining money, or defending the borders against invasion (I'm thinking of the colonization effort from the South), the specific things it was created to do.

    I'm with Nancy Reagan on this one: "Just say, 'NO!"
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2010
  6. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    user, you are dead on! Now that Obozo has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court we should really see some perversions of our Constitution. We were studying the 10th Amendment last night at a Tea Party sponsored Constitutional Class. We are fortunate that we have a lawyer teaching the class, Royal Alexander (you can goggle him). This was one of things I commented on during the class. I feel that most people don't know how much damage has been done, and they don't realize how long it has been going on. Mostly because they know little, or nothing, about our Constitution. I admit that I didn't either until a few years ago, my shame. Liberals and progressives believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that should evolve with the times. They want Supreme Court justices to be flexible in interpreting the Constitution and adapting 18th-century language to 21st-century applications. Watch what happens now!
  7. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,462
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    What user and carver said. I fear we may be too far down the road to change things back with the ballot box. :mad:
  8. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,991
    Location:
    Central Florida
    I see little difference between political parties. They care only about getting elected and staying in office. Those who are waiting in the wings will do or say anything that will get them votes, so where's the difference? Politics, like medicine has become a field of specialization. To be electable a candidate must fit a mold, sort of like a used car salesman and just about as trustworthy. I really believe we are too far gone to change things at the ballot box. Public Servants no more serve the public than a fox can guard a hen house. After the revolution all our elected officials must run on the platform of having no experience or prior dealings in politics.
  9. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,877
    Location:
    New Mexico
    OUTSTANDING thread everybody, thanks.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chuck Norris: Gun Bans Don't Curb Violent Crime Jan 30, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chuck Norris on Gun Control lobby (video) Dec 22, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chuck Norris Sez' .......... Aug 24, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Clueless congress by Chuck Norris Feb 19, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chuck Woolery is on OUR SIDE!!! Dec 24, 2012

Share This Page