If the 2nd amendment was 6 feet under before it's now an extra 2 or 3 feet even more deeply under the water.
.

Chicago is already taking advantage of them: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new…

I find this amusing as it was the "writ of Habeas corpus" that he and his president Lincoln had ignored during the "Civil War" they even tried to jail a federal judge for daring to call them out on that account.

In any case whether your right or wrong about what not only congress proposed but the states ratified in 1868. The 14th amendment should be repealed along with the 16th and 17th, and replaced with a more simple and to the point clause:

"Race shall not be a factor in any law made or enforced by either the State or Federal governments of the United States."

In his book “America’s Constitution”, Akhil Reed Amar, a firm believer in Federal supremacy in almost every situation, clearly writes about his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“Nowadays, the Fourteenth Amendment’s second sentence (No State shall….) is the handiest constitutional tool in the judicial kit bag, a constitutional provision deployed in court more often than any other-more often, perhaps than all the others combined. As a formal matter, this single sentence has come into play in most of the major constitutional cases decided by the modern Supreme Court.”

He glowingly continues…”Today’s Court construes these words to safeguard a vast array of rights against the States-both substantive rights (like freedom of religion and expression) and procedural rights (such as criminal defendant’s entitlement to appointed counsel and trial by jury); both rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights) and unenumerated rights (most important, rights of privacy and sexual freedom); both political rights (paradigmatically the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries) and nonpolitical civil rights (including rights of minors, aliens, and other nonvoters)”.

There is just no reasonable way that the Supreme Court could have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to include all of these “safeguards”. If one truly studies the history behind ratification of our Constitution they would behold a deeply held jealousy of States rights. The Constitution would never have been ratified if these men believed that the Federal government would usurp these powers from the States.

This debate can go round and round. We will never convince those who agree with Akhil Amar. Our modern Court has trampled the Constitution to near death and these folks cheer over the consolidation of the Union. However, the tide is turning. The people are awakening from their slumber and are beginning to understand the roots of our Constitution. Huzzah!

It is only a matter of time until these modern day Federalist are relieved of power once again and the Jeffersonian idea of government returns. The Tenth Amendment Center is the spearhead of the return. Huzzah!!!

As we see today, if you give somes states a half an inch, they will try to throw open the door. Some states and statists don't care about shooting in the air, they are seeking power and their best plan is to remove resistance. Our founding fathers pointed out the need for keeping local power and control and things have only gotten worse. You don't "compromise" your rights. If you do, you didn't really believe they were

As to cars, driving is a privilege, not a right. I can and is controlled.

This is just further evidence (though none is needed if you read the preamble to the BoR) that the US Constitution was primarily drafted to define the scope of the FEDERAL government – not the states.

Walter's argument is also inconsistent. He says, for example, the 1st amendment "means exactly what it says" but then he goes on to say that the 1st amendment's restrictions apply to the states "implicitly." That's one big jump to make for something that means EXACTLY what it says!

As usual, I find it odd that so many people who visit this web site WANT to expand the power of the federal government…