Forum Replies Created
I have to admit, this is one thing I didn’t realize at all! Thanks Dr Gutzman.
There is some irony then in the push for “Constitutional Carry” i.e. Vermont rules for unlicensed conceal and open carry of firearms being completely legal, based upon a lie–that the 2nd amendment is incorporated and goes ‘all the way down’ to the state and municipal level.
Following your analysis of the history of it, it would seem in fact unless your State constitution also provided the right to keep and bear arms, then in fact the individual State could impose gun control or gun confiscation and it would not be ‘illegal’. The 2nd amendment only bans the federal govt from regulating it. That is highly interesting! “The constitutions of thirty-nine (39) states guarantee a right to arms.” So in 11 states, gun bans (by that state and not the US govt)–while against natural rights–should not be illegal in federal court?
After mulling your answer over some more, it strikes me that the Federal Govt of the Progressive era didn’t really need a strict Constitutionalist justification for its involvement in anything; they already had precedents and SCOTUS interpretations that were giving them a lot of flexibility even then (albeit with some resistance from the SCOTUS).
So then the question is why in this case was a special amendment utilized? I had originally thought it was from some sort of constitutionalist sensibility that was a ‘check’ on federal imperialism but that doesn’t sound right anymore.
My new understanding is that it is because this was a bottom-up sort of initiative as do-gooder church groups and teetotalers petitioned enough States to get Prohibition of booze accomplished at a state level, then those same groups within the Federal system thought the country could now foist a federation-wide prohibition so that states that allowed liquor (wet states) would not be open-sieves to funnel illegal booze into dry-states. It was somewhat easier to put border control on the Canadian border than on a sister US state. According to Wikipedia, the war with Germany and the political-marginalization of German-Americans really helped remove the forces opposed to Prohibition from the equation.
I found this thread after I posted this question: http://www.libertyclassroom.com/forums/topic/hbo-series-john-adams/
The search tools in these forums are lacking!
So is the rule that if the States want to get this amendment repealed, they can request it and if they get 34 states, then there would be a convention but it would run the risk of being a runaway convention, or the Congress itself has to vote in favor of repealing this amendment and send it to the States to get 38 States to approve?
I think the first possibility, which is apparently unused in US history, is the only reasonable shot to get rid of it, unless they can get 33 States to petition for a convention and the Congress fires back with a repeal amendment out of fear…
I downloaded the whole series as a MB4 AAC audiobook and I also had a terrible jump as well, a bad error in the file, where it went from discussing George Washington as President and fighting the whiskey rebellion, and then poof, we are discussing the introduction of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration!!
I am a new member so my experience is limited. But I am using Waterfox 18.0.1 (a 64-bit wrapper for Firefox) on Win7x64, and the 1st video of Western Civ Before 1500 playing within the browser okay with no special tweaking or fixes.