Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (142494)	2/7/2002 6:43:28 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578501

tejek, re: The states have always railed against the power of Washington. So its not surprising to me that some states' constitutions are not in lock step with the US Constitution. The Constitutions or more accurately the States individual Bill's of Right's are written in "plain English" and in almost every state says something to effect: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired. And usually the states provide some additional statement within the context of a militia or "for the defense of the state or "for the common good" or "subject to police power"...I am not sure if they make a majority of the ones you posted but I bet if all were checked, the majority would restrict the bearing of arms in a similar way. In addition, several states disavow any relationship between their constitution and the rights therein vs the US Constitution. Again that's not surprising. One of them is CA which makes no mention of the a militia when talking about "bearing arms". However, it does state in Article 1, Sec. 24: "Rights garanteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those by the US Constitution". I don't think that statement is even legal.....however, its inclusion is understandable since CA's seem to stray considerably from intent of those provided for in the US Constitution. But my point still stands that first its not surprising that states have Constitutions that say something differently than the US Constitution.....and they are saying something differently when they talk about "bearing arms" outside the context of a militia. There has always been a fight for power between the states and the feds. Secondly, which constitution do you think would take precedence in a US Surpreme Ct hearing? ted