From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:43:18 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 17f7f7INN4p2@agate.berkeley.edu, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <81248@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>...
>Madison, when he introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress,  specifically 
>said he drafted them to satisfy the opposition to the Constitution (as
>represented by the debates over ratification.)

Again, this means very little.  You can explore Madison's personal motives
and beliefs all you like, but he was not the only person who ratified the
amendments.  You simply cannot know what was in everyone's minds when they
approved the language.  Ratification is a collective process, not an individual
one.  One of the problems with the "original intent" docrine is determining
just whose intent you are talking about.

>This opposition included substantial objections to government control
>of the militia, and the threat of tyranny if the people were disarmed
>or the militia weakened (while the government maintianed a regular army.)

That doesn't even tell you that Madison was even thinking of these objections
when he spoke of "satisfying the opposition."  He could have had entirely
different issues in mind.  

>Check again: The Constitution makes no mention what so ever of has the 
>authority to interpert it. I have as much right as the Supreme Court to
>do so. The Court, however, has a great deal of power to enforce it's
>interpertation: It can allow laws _it_ considers constitutional to be
>enforced, or prevent the enforcement of laws _it_ sees as unconstitutional.
>It wasn't untill 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, that the Court claimed
>any jurisdiction over interperting the Constitution, and said it would
>use it's legidimate powers to make it's interpertations stick.

1803.  There were still a few people around at the time who understood the
issues of the 1780's and 1790's.  But you refer to the first case in which
the Court overturned a state law, not the date from which authority to do so 
existed.  Presumably, that existed from its inception.  The Constitution was
a federalist document, and it was intended to bind the states in a closer
federal union.  The Supreme Court had the explicit right under Article III
to adjudicate matters "to controversies to which the United States shall be
a party."  To allow state legislatures to pass laws that contravened federal
law would have nullified the federalist intent of the Constitution and 
thrown matters back into the bad old days of the Articles of Confederation.

>The states have also claimed the power to interpert the Constitution,
>and nullify any federal law they consider unconstitutional...

Anyone can claim any right they want.  The Supreme Court has the final say.
That is what makes it "Supreme".  It can let stand the rulings of the lower
courts if it so wishes.  You may disagree with this view, but you are right
about one thing.  The federal government has the power.  That power stems not
just from the Civil War, but from the ratification of the Constitution.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french