Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
"I would like to see the concept expanded so that an individual who:

a) Has amassed an arsenal,

and

b) Has expressed white supremacy views either online or in person,

-has their guns taken away."


Lots of us have more than one weapon. The Constitution does not limit the number, it just protects their possession, Snowflake.

How are you going to take them from criminals? They are sold daily on the streets.

There are ~ 300 million guns in America.

Will you take them from BLM, the Black Panthers, ANTIFA..lots of luck with that. They espouse.black supremacy views either online or in person,
 
Flash said:
But it has the power to interpret the Constitution according to Madison in Federalist No. 78. That includes determining the constitutionality of actions.
Click to expand...

Interpret but not change. Determining the constitutionality is the purview of the courts but not to change the Constitution as the liberals attempt daily.
 
Flash said:
Jefferson said the power did not exist. Hamilton said it was in the "necessary and proper" (implied powers) clause.
Click to expand...

Hamilton was also rebuffed in his claims of federal supremacy. the necessary and proper clause only applies to those prescribed powers, not implied powers
 
Flash said:
But it has the power to interpret the Constitution according to Madison in Federalist No. 78. That includes determining the constitutionality of actions.
Click to expand...

it would be highly improbable that madisons intention was to let part of the new federal government determine the limits of their powers via interpreting the constitution.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Hamilton was also rebuffed in his claims of federal supremacy. the necessary and proper clause only applies to those prescribed powers, not implied powers
Click to expand...

He was not rebuffed in the creation of the national bank.

The necessary and proper clause is the source of the implied powers--it is whatever is necessary to carry out the delegated powers.

Since the government had the power to tax and spend Hamilton argued it was necessary and proper to create a bank to handle that money. Jefferson argued it was not absolutely necessary since the money could be kept in private banks. Hamilton said it did not have to be absolutely necessary, only convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress. Washington and most of the administration (Federalists) sided with Hamilton.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
but they don't do that. they are a politically appointed branch of a central government that has usurped power from the states and the people
Click to expand...

They have also struck down many laws and actions, both federal and state, that are unconstitutional expansions of governmental power. This is the role Madison expected them to serve. Overturning an unconstitutional state law is not usurping state power, it is protecting our rights.
 
Into the Night said:
Jefferson is correct. Hamilton is wrong. 'Necessary and proper' is not a power or authority.
Click to expand...

The men involved in writing the Constitution knew less about its meaning than an Anti-Federalist not involved in its construction?

Both Hamilton and Jefferson recognized the necessary and proper clause as a power necessary to carry out delegated powers. The disagreement was how broad that power is.
 
Flash said:
The men involved in writing the Constitution knew less about its meaning than an Anti-Federalist not involved in its construction?

Both Hamilton and Jefferson recognized the necessary and proper clause as a power necessary to carry out delegated powers. The disagreement was how broad that power is.
Click to expand...

It is not a power. Hamilton did not write the Constitution. Jefferson and Adams did.
 
Flash said:
They have also struck down many laws and actions, both federal and state, that are unconstitutional expansions of governmental power.
Click to expand...
Too bad they also attempt to change the Constitution from time to time.
Flash said:
This is the role Madison expected them to serve. Overturning an unconstitutional state law is not usurping state power, it is protecting our rights.
Click to expand...
But you are not looking at the problem, only the success stories.
 
Flash said:
He was not rebuffed in the creation of the national bank.
Click to expand...
Yes he was.
Flash said:
The necessary and proper clause is the source of the implied powers--it is whatever is necessary to carry out the delegated powers.
Click to expand...
Not a power.
Flash said:
Since the government had the power to tax and spend Hamilton argued it was necessary and proper to create a bank to handle that money.
Click to expand...
That's what the treasury is for, dummy.
Flash said:
Jefferson argued it was not absolutely necessary since the money could be kept in private banks.
Click to expand...
...or just keep it in the treasury.
Flash said:
Hamilton said it did not have to be absolutely necessary, only convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress.
Click to expand...
Congress does not have that power.
Flash said:
Washington and most of the administration (Federalists) sided with Hamilton.
Click to expand...
The purpose of that 'bank' was not to act as a bank, but to act as a payment system for foreign debt.
 
Earl said:
Interpret but not change. Determining the constitutionality is the purview of the courts but not to change the Constitution as the liberals attempt daily.
Click to expand...

They do not have power to interpret it either. Only the States themselves have that power, collectively.
 
Into the Night said:
The purpose of that 'bank' was not to act as a bank, but to act as a payment system for foreign debt.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, those involved in writing the document believed they had given Congress that power. That is probably a more accurate judgment than yours.

Hamilton was successful in creating the national bank. How was he rebuffed? The Supreme Court later upheld that law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top