• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

28th Amendment???

Tucker Case said:
To my knowledge, there is no constitutional right to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. Thus, if such a federal law passed, it wouldn't be explicitly unconstitutional. And since it falls within the purview of enumerated powers to regulate inter-state and international commerce, it would be quite constitutional to ban such things (so long as intrastate commerce is unaffected).
Click to expand...
Except that the federal government has no control over intra state commerce only over interstate commerce.
 
Tucker Case said:
To my knowledge, there is no constitutional right to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. Thus, if such a federal law passed, it wouldn't be explicitly unconstitutional. And since it falls within the purview of enumerated powers to regulate inter-state and international commerce, it would be quite constitutional to ban such things (so long as intrastate commerce is unaffected).
Click to expand...

Regulation of commerce does not translate to firearm regulation, nice try.
 
Tucker Case said:
To my knowledge, there is no constitutional right to manufacture, import, or sell firearms.
Click to expand...
Absolutely there is, while the second is specifically worded for keeping an bearing of arms, it follows that for such to be possible someone must be able to produce, supply, and sell them. I have every right to sell my property as I see fit, and that is ultimately what my arms are, property.
Thus, if such a federal law passed, it wouldn't be explicitly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Except that there is no federal enumerated power to do so, tenth amendment.
And since it falls within the purview of enumerated powers to regulate inter-state and international commerce, it would be quite constitutional to ban such things (so long as intrastate commerce is unaffected).
Click to expand...
This is an FDR fallacy created by SCOTUS, done because of the court packing scheme. The federal does not have powers past enforcing fair trade between the states and other governmental bodies. It is literally interstate trade amongst the governments, not "anything traded across state borders". In that time regulate meant "to make regular" or better stated "in proper working order" which was meant to say that my state could not give your state an unfavorable rate of trade to European interests or even another southern state.
 
blaxshep said:
Regulation of commerce does not translate to firearm regulation, nice try.
Click to expand...

Not firearm regulation, the regulation of commerce related to firearms. Importation = commerce. Sales = commerce. distribution = commerce. Manufacture = commerce.

The federal government can regulate interstate and international commerce related to firearms, as per the constitution. They cannot regulate intrastate commerce as it relates to firearms.

This issue does not correlate with abortion, it correlates to the laws about drugs.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Absolutely there is, while the second is specifically worded for keeping an bearing of arms, it follows that for such to be possible someone must be able to produce, supply, and sell them. I have every right to sell my property as I see fit, and that is ultimately what my arms are, property.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to sell your property as you see fit. Test it out sometime, if you don't beleive me. Sell a bottle of vodka to a five year old.

Just because you can pretend you have a right to do something does not mean you do. It's clear that people do not have an unconditional right to sell their property as they see fit.
 
Tucker Case said:
Not firearm regulation, the regulation of commerce related to firearms. Importation = commerce. Sales = commerce. distribution = commerce. Manufacture = commerce.
Click to expand...
Not related to the ninth amendment power. Commerce, yes, interstate, yes, government related, no. That's the difference, the federal does not have purview over anything more than intergovernmental transactions. This was passed specifically due to the state tax issues from the articles of confederation.

The federal government can regulate interstate and international commerce related to firearms, as per the constitution. They cannot regulate intrastate commerce as it relates to firearms.
Click to expand...
No it can't. Bad SCOTUS decision expanding commerce clause.

This issue does not correlate with abortion, it correlates to the laws about drugs.
Click to expand...
The one common thread they all share is that it was court created or approved powers not found in the constitution.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not related to the ninth amendment power. Commerce, yes, interstate, yes, government related, no. That's the difference, the federal does not have purview over anything more than intergovernmental transactions. This was passed specifically due to the state tax issues from the articles of confederation.

No it can't. Bad SCOTUS decision expanding commerce clause.

The one common thread they all share is that it was court created or approved powers not found in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You have nothing to support your assertions. There is no constitutional right to sell your property as you see fit. The government has a right to regulate intestate and international commerce, regardless of the product.

You cannot manufacture or distribute any product across state or international lines without being subject to the enumerated federal power to regulate commerce in those areas.
 
Tucker Case said:
You don't have the right to sell your property as you see fit. Test it out sometime, if you don't beleive me. Sell a bottle of vodka to a five year old.
Click to expand...
State law, not federal. The states do have the right to control things like that under reserved powers. The second amendment, bound to the states by the fourteenth, prohibits state law interfering with firearms commerce, I have the right to the property, to keep and bear, I also have the right to commerce, and may so sell it as I please. You want to argue against minor sales and criminal prohibitions, fine, but there is only so far the government can legally go in legislating, and it is long past it's actual powers.

Just because you can pretend you have a right to do something does not mean you do. It's clear that people do not have an unconditional right to sell their property as they see fit.
Click to expand...
I can sell a car to whoever I please, ditto with my house, any pets I may have, any property. I can sell my firearm to any adult I please, unless they give me a reason to believe they are a prohibited person, in which case I cannot sell. Absent knowledge of criminal intent or status there is not one damn thing legally that can be done to me.
 
LaMidRighter said:
State law, not federal.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter which level of government the law comes from. You do not have an unlimited constitutional right right to sell your property as you see fit because if you did, no such law limiting you from selling your property as you see fit could exist at any level.


The second amendment, bound to the states by the fourteenth, prohibits state law interfering with firearms commerce, I have the right to the property, to keep and bear, I also have the right to commerce, and may so sell it as I please.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

Nothing in the second or 14th interferes with that power.

The Federal government cannot constitutionally prevent you from selling a gun to someone in the same state as you are in (only the state itself could prevent that). They can regulate interstate and international commerce of whatever product they wish, though.

Keep and bear =/= manufacture and distribute.
 
BretJ said:
Anyone see a problem with this idea?
Click to expand...
Just this part:

BretJ said:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of AR, AK, military patterned firearms or components within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for sporting, defensive or otherwise lawful purposes is hereby prohibited.
Click to expand...
Just take out that little section and I'm ok with it.
 
Tucker Case said:
Nonsense. You have nothing to support your assertions. There is no constitutional right to sell your property as you see fit. The government has a right to regulate intestate and international commerce, regardless of the product.

You cannot manufacture or distribute any product across state or international lines without being subject to the enumerated federal power to regulate commerce in those areas.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. Federalist 11-13 and Article 1 section 8. The "Interstate" commerce clause is not listed as simply interstate, it is specifically named as the power to "Regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the indian tribes". Now, can we tell Europe how to make their products? Do we have regulatory powers over German goods? No, we in fact don't and can't.

Let's expand on my last sentence. We can ban goods from our shores made in other countries "technically" by enforcing laws whether proper or not, but we cannot tell Germany that their HK G8 may no longer be produced because we banned automatics production. That's the thing, Madison spoke specifically of intergovernmental trade, the founders wrote things simply, concisely, and specifically and put in "foreign" commerce which was either a mistake, or they weren't speaking to giving a national regulatory power.

Finally, and to hammer the point home. If the commerce clause was the catchall FDR claimed, why would he have to blackmail the court with a stacking scheme to get that interpretation, SCOTUS did not agree with him.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yes, I do. Federalist 11-13 and Article 1 section 8. The "Interstate" commerce clause is not listed as simply interstate, it is specifically named as the power to "Regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the indian tribes". Now, can we tell Europe how to make their products? Do we have regulatory powers over German goods? No, we in fact don't and can't.
Click to expand...

Of course not. We can regulate whether or not the foreign-made products are imported, though.
 
Tucker Case said:
Only because no law exists preventing you from doing so. There is no right to sell things.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. The constitution was written with the BOR after request from Madison, Hamilton disagreed with a BOR because he feared that in time people would forget that they weren't the only rights, just those important enough to specifically protect. States have more power within their borders than the federal, that they don't exercise it at this point is a shame, but it is there, the federal has specific powers and no more, though they can if necessary and proper attempt to pass a law that is very close to a power they do have, and is proven necessary.

States can prohibit certain things, as can local governments which is why you may see something like a dry county. However, absent a proper law I do in fact have the right to engage in commerce with my property, passing a law against such may pass a court test, but may not be proper. The court has a pretty spotty history of judgement afterall.
 
Tucker Case said:
Of course not. We can regulate whether or not the foreign-made products are imported, though.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you cannot give input or law to their manufacture, which invalidates the argument that interstate products can be regulated under the power. The foreign, interstate, and indian commerce clause wasn't written as and/or. IOW, foreign, interstate, and indian trade must be equitable, not to be confused with regulatory power given over U.S. goods.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yes, but you cannot give input or law to their manufacture...
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** about that? The federal government has a right to regulate importation of foreign products, and they have a right to regulate the mass-manufacture of domestic products for interstate sale.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where?
Click to expand...
Is the power to regulate sales granted to the federal government? Can a state legitimately put requirements past taxes on who I can sell to, important, take firearms out of it. Can a state tell me I must sell my home to a certain race/creed/religion, or prohibit me from selling to a person with a criminal past, how about cars, can they ban me from selling my car to a person with a suspended license because of OWI, no, they cannot, which is where my right to sell is established.

The only exception is illicit activity. I can't build meth lab on my property and sell that product, but it is already a prohibited substance. As I stated, Hamilton warned that codifying a small subset of rights would lead the populace to believe that only those on paper would be considered a right. Unfortunately he is being proven correct in modern times.
 
Tucker Case said:
Who gives a **** about that? The federal government has a right to regulate importation of foreign products, and they have a right to regulate the mass-manufacture of domestic products for interstate sale.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what happened with the 18th Amendment.
 
Tucker Case said:
Who gives a **** about that? The federal government has a right to regulate importation of foreign products, and they have a right to regulate the mass-manufacture of domestic products for interstate sale.
Click to expand...
It's not an and/or amendment. To dismiss that point is to uphold an improper reading of the constitution.
 
BretJ said:
Which is exactly what happened with the 18th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's quite different. The federal government asked the states for that power by passing the amendment properly, the states granted that power by ratifying it. So because the proper amendment process was engaged and successful the federal then did legitimately have that power and it was proper law. In the case of the FDR years, SCOTUS improperly interpreted the commerce clause to expand federal powers, it was quite illigitimate and theft of more power against the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom