How did Ron Paul vote? Ryan Paul? Also, by the time I checked out this site, the word "constitution" was spelled correctly.

So Mr. Towery is an incrementalist, since he seems to think Carter was better than the Body Odor that dwells in the formerly White House, that dark-skinned rich white guy... Destroying the American way of life (as in united 50 states, with a limited government made of senators and representatives from those states) is okay as long as it is done slowly. What a douche-bag.

A_Freeman wrote: "Jim, BTW, where did I post a comment to you?" Answer: Page 3, 6/30/2010 9:50:15 PM On other points made in your immediately prior reply, the Constitution, whether or not it is applied rationally or protected adequately, still exists, despite the usurpations. That is why we are hopefully ALL struggling today to overturn much of the damage that has been done since Marbury. That said, it is not in order to bring back slavery, though that could seem to be one thing I might reasonably conclude by your unwavering insistence that the Bill of Rights are not applicable to the states. Forgetting of course the pesky 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments which relate to things over which the states did operate... why else...

Freeman wrote: "I am not arguing that the right to own a weapon (not just arms) for the purpose of self defense which is applicable against not just common criminals, but any oppressive government can ever be legislated away, but that the US constitution never provided a power that could be used against the states to determine internal policing." So which is it? The Civil War was right, or wrong? Also, thank you for telling me what I was saying. My words seemed pretty clear. You strike me as one of those elitists you think we should all abhor, as long as we do so on your say so, and with your blessing. If the Bill of Rights were not "incorporated" (by design and desire of the Delegates to the First Congress), so that there could be no...

Congress, most presidents, and SCOTUS miss the point that Constitutional restrictions have always been "incorporated" against the states in the Second Amendment. While Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 contain specific prohibitions against states, for example, the Bill of Rights has some as well - wherever the words "Congress shall not" are ABSENT, it applies to every form of government, agency, city, and individual. The First Amendment was specific to Congress; the Second Amendment, by not mentioning Congress, was general to all government, Federal, state, local - it never specified that only the Federal government was prohibited from "infringing" the right to keep and bear arms! And to those who think the Bill of Rights was just applicable...

All this nattering about how to change the Constitution - indeed, how to remove a "right" - boggles my mind! There was only ONE attempt to take away a right via the amending process and that was repealed within a little over a decade. Do we really think it wise to suppose that the intent of amending the Constitution was to denigrate rights (enumerated or otherwise)? Rue the day any of our rights are amended away, and pray that someone in the White House has enough sense to appoint (for consideration) judges who rule by law, not by opinion.