is it unconstitutional to prohibit citizens to have nuclear weapons?

[Emsworth]

For the federal government, yes. For the states, no.

[Emsworth]

Most certainly not.

Finally, someone sane!  Thank you for your sanity.

Which clause authorizes the federal government to ban nuclear weapons? A federal ban is clearly unconstitutional outside the District of Columbia.

[Emsworth]

LOL - man, you are either kidding or you are sniffing some bad glue. And I don't mean to offend you. I'm not trying to be insulting. But can you even imagine the security threat? Can you even IMAGINE it? I don't think so.

The Constitution is not to be interpreted according to alleged security threats, vague fears, or perceived forebodings of doom.

I ask again, which clause authorizes a general federal ban on the possession of nuclear weapons?

[Emsworth]

Given that civilian ownership of nuclear weapons could well spell the end of the federal government (not to mention a hell of a lot of people), I would say that the federal government can use the elastic clause to ban civilian ownership of nukes so that it can actually exercise its enumerated powers.

That line of reasoning could allow the federal government to exercise a variety of powers in order to "ensure its existence." All manner of things can be said to pose a threat to the "existence" of the federal government--it does not follow that Congress may regulate them. Consider the case of the years prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Could Congress ban firearms, because an armed populace poses a threat to the existence of the government? Could Congress prohibit the freedom of speech, because criticism poses a threat to the existence of the government? Could Congress punish a particular ideological group, because its doctrines posed a threat to the existence of the government? Clearly, even without the Bill of Rights, it could not have done so.

The federal government is perfectly free to protect itself from attack by any enemy, whether domestic or foreign. In particular, Article I allows Congress to declare war (thereby covering foreign enemies), while Article III makes it treason to levy war against the United States (thereby covering domestic ones). However, the mere possession of a nuclear weapon does not constitute war against the United States.

[Emsworth]

BTW, folks, the Constitution says Congress can make rules governing the regulation of land and naval forces, that includes nukes.  

This clause only authorizes Congress to regulate the military, not the general population. Members of the general public are not members of the land or naval forces, and are accordingly not within the scope of this clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of us is arguing that they should be legal. We are merely arguing that a federal ban is unconstitutional.

[Emsworth]

I disagree since nukes are military equipment, hardware. The military and the government do not have to make nukes available to people.

We are not saying that the military has to make nuclear weapons available to people. Obtaining nuclear weapons from the government is different from developing a nuclear weapon on one's own (wholly implausible, I admit, but still theoretically possible.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... A federal ban is unconstitutional. A state ban is perfectly permissible.

[Emsworth]

Are you radical libertarians keeping up with current events? We're trying to keep nukes out of the hands of people who would use them on us, and you think that's unconstitutional.

That is not a valid argument about whether something is constitutional or not.

Furthermore, we have only argued about federal bans on the possession of nuclear weapons within the United States. Nothing in this argument applies to the activities of the government overseas.

[Emsworth]

It sure as heck is valid because we're talking about the security of America and the American people.

No, we are talking about the meaning of the Constitution, not about the security of the American people. The former is entirely distinct from the latter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument "X makes the American people more secure, therefore X is constitutional" is an entirely invalid one. Any number of laws may make the American people more secure; it does not follow that Congress would always have the authority to enact them. Congress may exercise only those powers which have been granted to it. It cannot, under the cloak of acting in the interests of national security, exercise any power it desires.

[Emsworth]

Second, nukes are part of the naval and land force component of the military, as I've argued. Therefore, Congress and the government can regulate them, prohibit people from having them, whatever..

Let us investigate the clause that allegedly allows Congress to ban nuclear weapons.

The Constitution provides, "The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

In other words, it may govern the armed forces of the United States. Members of the general population, quite clearly, are not a part of the armed forces of the United States. Their activities, therefore, cannot be subject to federal control under this clause.

You assert, "nukes are part of the naval and land force component of the military." This proposition, however, is not entirely true. Certain nuclear weapons are a part of the military--those owned by the government. There is no basis for asserting that a hypothetical privately owned nuclear weapon is automatically a part of the military, automatically controlled by the government.

On the whole, private people are not a part of the land or naval forces. Privately owned nuclear weapons are not a part of the land or naval forces. Thus, it emerges with an elegant inevitability that private ownership of nuclear weapons is not subject to regulation under this clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I have said that a federal ban on nuclear weapons is unconstitutional. I have never said anything about whether it should be unconstitutional, or about state legislation on the subject.

Obviously, I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be legal. I merely hold that the illegality must be due to state law, not federal law.

As you're dying from nuclear fall-out and as your skin melts off your face, maybe you could find someone to listen to you on how constitutionally lifting a ban on nukes was the right thing to do.

Argumentum ad consequentiam

[Emsworth]

A disaster would be inevitable if people could own nukes. That's just how it is. If you can't accept that we can't argue about it. Nukes are weapons that only certified, specifically educated and specially trained people can work with - if you can't accept that they are too dangerous for the average person, we can't argue, and you're not in reality, plain and simple.

As I said, I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be legal. I perfectly agree that they should be banned. My only point is this: the bans should be imposed by the states, not the federal government.

Whoa there bucko.  When you discuss the 2nd amendment, you claim that the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to everyone (which I would generally agree with) even though the Constitution specifies first that this right is a part of a "well regulated militia".

But now, you claim that members of the general population are "clearly" not a part of said militia.

The "militia" and the "and and naval forces" are two completely different things. The former is a term that includes the general public, but the latter includes only the military.

[Emsworth]

So what happens if a state Constitution does not entitle that government to prohibit such weaponry?

Then the state constitution should be amended.

[Emsworth]

And it is constitutional to ban people from having nukes because doing so (legalizing such a thing) severely jeopordizes one's constitutional right to NOT BE BLOWN INTO OBLIVION!!!!!!!!!!

There is no such constitutional right. (I'm being serious! )