Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[Earl]

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,

[Earl]

But it has the power to interpret the Constitution according to Madison in Federalist No. 78. That includes determining the constitutionality of actions.

Interpret but not change. Determining the constitutionality is the purview of the courts but not to change the Constitution as the liberals attempt daily.

[SmarterthanYou]

Jefferson said the power did not exist. Hamilton said it was in the "necessary and proper" (implied powers) clause.

Hamilton was also rebuffed in his claims of federal supremacy. the necessary and proper clause only applies to those prescribed powers, not implied powers

[SmarterthanYou]

But it has the power to interpret the Constitution according to Madison in Federalist No. 78. That includes determining the constitutionality of actions.

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.

[Flash]

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.

That is why the courts serve as a check on that power.

[Flash]

Hamilton was also rebuffed in his claims of federal supremacy. the necessary and proper clause only applies to those prescribed powers, not implied powers

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.

[Into the Night]

Jefferson said the power did not exist. Hamilton said it was in the "necessary and proper" (implied powers) clause.

Jefferson is correct. Hamilton is wrong. 'Necessary and proper' is not a power or authority.

[SmarterthanYou]

That is why the courts serve as a check on that power.

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

[Flash]

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

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.

[Flash]

Jefferson is correct. Hamilton is wrong. 'Necessary and proper' is not a power or authority.

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.

[Into the Night]

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.

It is not a power. Hamilton did not write the Constitution. Jefferson and Adams did.

[Into the Night]

They have also struck down many laws and actions, both federal and state, that are unconstitutional expansions of governmental power.

Too bad they also attempt to change the Constitution from time to time.

This is the role Madison expected them to serve. Overturning an unconstitutional state law is not usurping state power, it is protecting our rights.

But you are not looking at the problem, only the success stories.

[Into the Night]

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

Yes he was.

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

Not a power.

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.

That's what the treasury is for, dummy.

Jefferson argued it was not absolutely necessary since the money could be kept in private banks.

...or just keep it in the treasury.

Hamilton said it did not have to be absolutely necessary, only convenient and appropriate as determined by Congress.

Congress does not have that power.

Washington and most of the administration (Federalists) sided with Hamilton.

The purpose of that 'bank' was not to act as a bank, but to act as a payment system for foreign debt.

[Into the Night]

Interpret but not change. Determining the constitutionality is the purview of the courts but not to change the Constitution as the liberals attempt daily.

They do not have power to interpret it either. Only the States themselves have that power, collectively.

[Into the Night]

That is why the courts serve as a check on that power.

They serve as a check on Congress and the President, NOT the Constitution!