The Ninth Amendment

[jaeger19]

you don't understand the entire environment surrounding the constitution. The AOC failed. that meant what we had was several states which were each independent states with their own laws. The founders wanted to create a central federal government with the consent of the states. The federal government was given certain powers by the states-such as the power to mint coin, enter treaties, declare war etc. The states agreed to that ceding of state power to a central government.

The founders did not give the CENTRAL government certain powers. Some founders feared that merely NOT delegating some powers to the federal government would NOT PREVENT that federal government from engaging in such areas. SO to appease one faction of the founders and those who were instrumental in ratifying the Constitution, the bill of rights were created to affirmatively LIMIT the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in areas where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was never given any power in the first place

before I go on-do you agree or disagree with that and if you disagree with that-state why

No sir.. no diversions

Again... so you have only two ways to go with your premise:

Either.. you disagree with equal protection under the law.. since according to you, its against the original intent of the founders constitution.

Which would also include disagreeing with Heller, and includes agreeing that states have the right to ban any and all firearms in their state.


OR

The founders got the original constitution wrong. and it had to be fixed.

So which is it?

 

[jaeger19]

If there was no fourteenth amendment, then yes, states would retain that power, as they rightfully should.

It wasn't a matter of equal protection under the law (state law in particular) being looked down upon or discouraged, but rather, remaining truthful to the ultimate ideal of Federalism which acts as the foundation for the American government.

I see.. so according to you the states should have the right to permit the ownership of slaves... okay.,,,,,

 

[TurtleDude]

No sir.. no diversions

Again... so you have only two ways to go with your premise:

Either.. you disagree with equal protection under the law.. since according to you, its against the original intent of the founders constitution.

Which would also include disagreeing with Heller, and includes agreeing that states have the right to ban any and all firearms in their state.


OR

The founders got the original constitution wrong. and it had to be fixed.

So which is it?

your evasion proves one or two things

1) you don't understand this issue at all

2) you do understand it now and you don't want to admit your prior ignorance.

You are trying to argue POST incorporation as being the same environment as PRE-Incorporation.

Luftwaffe was right.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I see.. so according to you the states should have the right to permit the ownership of slaves... okay.,,,,,

That my friend, is wrong. The fourteenth is not necessary to come to that conclusion because the thirteenth amendment prohibited slaves throughout all the USA with the added bonus of not undermining federalism and states' rights.

You can crawl back into the hole you came from now. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

your evasion proves one or two things

1) you don't understand this issue at all

2) you do understand it now and you don't want to admit your prior ignorance.

You are trying to argue POST incorporation as being the same environment as PRE-Incorporation.

Luftwaffe was right.

Then he comes back with some slaves bull**** as if the thirteenth amendment didn't exist. The fourteenth was unnecessary, there should have just been more amendments similar to the thirteenth so that we wouldn't have this issue where federalism is getting raped.