"George Willer" wrote in message
...
You tell 'em. They could probably use a few lessons about what the
Constitution means. What's your take on the equal protection clause of
the
14th Amendment?

--
Ed Huntress

To me, it spells out the God given right for all men to be treated
equally.
That's a good thing.

Well, then you're opposed to state's rights, then. That's one of the more
curious flip-flops that conservatives have gone through over the past 20
years or so. I guess they're goring different oxen these days.

That's the context in which the 14th becomes an issue, when a citizen of a
state sues the state because his rights are being violated. The effect has
been to impose most of the BOR upon the states, making the states subject to
federal law on a wide variety of rights-related issues.

That some men have become more equal than others is
NOT a good thing.

Yeah, when the income differential between corporate executives and their
workers hit a factor of 400, I came over to your side on that issue, too.


Now tell me your take on the second.

It means that Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of
individuals to own guns, subject to the same limitation that all of the BOR
is subject to: compelling state interest (which is to say, national
interest, because the 2nd doesn't apply to the states) to limit it.

For the record, I don't think that the federal "assault weapons" bills meet
the standard of compelling state interest. They're cases of overreaching.

--
Ed Huntress