• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

the 2nd amendment conflicts with article 1 sec.10 clause 1 of the costitiution

shatteredxdreams8

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK I've got a question? people debate about the right to bear arms in the United States, people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia, but in Article I sec.10 clause 1 of the Constitution it says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." so according to that it would outlaw state militia so therefore proving that amendment 2 of the constitution was not made to let states maintain there state militias..
:confused:
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shatteredxdreams8 said:
OK I've got a question? people debate about the right to bear arms in the United States, people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia, but in Article I sec.10 clause 1 of the Constitution it says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." so according to that it would outlaw state militia so therefore proving that amendment 2 of the constitution was not made to let states maintain there state militias..
:confused:
You mean Article I sec 10:3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This clause refers to standing active duty troops, like those of the federal governmet, not militia. Militia and "troops" are seperate concepts, as can easily be seen in Article I sec 8 in that it is clearly dealt with seperately from the standing military.

In any event, 2 things:
1- The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people, and therefore the restriction in I-10: woudl not apply;
2- The 2nd Amendment modifies and superceedes any relevant portion of the Constitution already in place at the time of its ratification,
 
H

HTColeman

M14 Shooter said:
You mean Article I sec 10:3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This clause refers to standing active duty troops, like those of the federal governmet, not militia. Militia and "troops" are seperate concepts, as can easily be seen in Article I sec 8 in that it is clearly dealt with seperately from the standing military.

In any event, 2 things:
1- The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people, and therefore the restriction in I-10: woudl not apply;
2- The 2nd Amendment modifies and superceedes any relevant portion of the Constitution already in place at the time of its ratification,
1st, an amendment does not supercede any other part of the constitution unless it specifically says so, for example prohibition.

Also, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal gov't, it has not been incorporated by any supreme court case to state gov'ts. So any state is bound not bound to honor that.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
HTColeman said:
1st, an amendment does not supercede any other part of the constitution unless it specifically says so, for example prohibition.
An amendment, being something that AMENDS the constitution, by definition, superceeds any relevant part of the Constitution that exists at the time the amendment is ratified. It need not specifically say so.


Also, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal gov't, it has not been incorporated by any supreme court case to state gov'ts. So any state is bound not bound to honor that.
Yet.

And given that all the other amendments that have been incorporated against the states through the 14th amendment, why woudl the 2nd also not be incorporated?
 
H

HTColeman

Goobieman said:
Yet.

And given that all the other amendments that have been incorporated against the states through the 14th amendment, why woudl the 2nd also not be incorporated?
I'm not saying it wouldn't be, but no weapons case such as this has ever gone to the supreme court, so until then, the states could ban all weapons in their state.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
HTColeman said:
I'm not saying it wouldn't be, but no weapons case such as this has ever gone to the supreme court, so until then, the states could ban all weapons in their state.
Assuming that the state coinstitutions do not have similar protections. Many do.

And any such ban would guarantee a trip to the SCotUS, with incorporation soon to follow.
 
Top Bottom