"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The fact that initially Madison did not think a bill of rights was necessary does not make your case for "States" being able to do as they please, that’s none sense. Madison wrote and introduced them to avoid a second constitutional convention, Jefferson supported them.

Now while this little history jaunt has been interesting it has nothing to do with the current constitution the matter still stands. Do states have the right to deny what is clearly enumerated as a basic right of a citizen of the united sates.

So do they and if so where is your evidence?

No law will ever stop people from speaking. No code will ever stop people from praying. No rule will ever stop people from defending themselves with tools of the day. So why see government machination focus on doing those things? It is a waste of time and only serves to create discord and inequality in prosecution. For there would be no way to enforce such legalities equally among the masses.

Individual Freedom and Liberty itself was the number one priority – it is what so much was sacrificed to attain.

As to your holding, I ask you to square it with the Declaration of Independence. Your position is that state governments are immune to natural rights. I hold that such a position is unjust and totally contrary to the freedom the revolutionary war was fought to attain.

States don't have rights, they have powers. Individuals have rights. I notice in your debate that you refer quite a lot to rights of government, but as for individuals – not so much. Why is that?

If you do not recognize that all governments must submit to individual rights, then you open yourself up to the slavery accusation. Itisn't so much the language of the 14th that has afforded creeping, rather it is the Supreme Court case law which has don so. I offer to you that an already existing vehicle of check and balance is available to resolve that outside the court. The legislature could end it all with an Amendment which is really very simple. Replace privileges or immunities with the words inalienable rights.

I offer that people would have laughed themselves silly if government , state or local, thought it was empowered to ignore inalienable rights. Many of us laugh at that today.

You know hammer, I don't think we are as far apart on this as it might seem. As deep a discussion as this is, some quality discussion over a couple beers would be most beneficial.

I respect the due powers of the state and hold they are not, and never were intended to be, unlimited. I respect the due powers of the federal government as well and agree it also must be held to a clearly limited status. This Patriot expects both to respect it's own set of boundaries called the natural rights of the individual.