Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While the 1st amendment DID only apply to congress (It specifically says in its text "Congress shall make no law..."), the 2nd made no such confinement of its command to only Congress. The 2nd said "Since X is true, the right shall not be restricted or taken away." Since it didn't mention WHO shall not take it away, that meant that the command applied to EVERYBODY. Including Fed govt, states, and local.
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that while an accused person gets a jury trial if he breaks a Federal law, he DOESN'T get one if he breaks a state or local law (6th amendment).
And while the Fed govt isn't allowed to beat a confession out of a suspect, a state or local govt CAN (5th amendment).
And while A Fed govt agent must get a warrant before entering your house and searching it, a state cop can just walk in any time and search it from top to bottom, whenever he wants, for any reason or no reason (4th amendment).
And on and on.
Are you sure you want to continue this ludicrous dream that the entire BOR originally only applied to the Fed govt?
It didn't... except for the parts that specifically said so, like the 1st amendment.
And later adoption of the 14th amendment changed that, too.
If you can keep droning a false premise about the Bill of Rights, I can keep refuting it by pointing out the ridiculous conclusions that come from your assertions.
You've got to understand that this individual is an attorney. They don't call them "liars for hire" for nothing.
I'm sure that you could find another attorney that has a different opinion than his? Just as you have both a defense attorney and a prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial or civil suit. One of them is gonna' win and another is gonna' lose. It doesn't make either one of them right or wrong. It's their job to argue cases that benefit one side or the other. That does not make all attorney's Constitutional Scholars.
A lot of state's have their own individual Constitutional provisions that may or may not go beyond the Federal Constitution. My home state of Arizona has its own 2nd Amendment provision that goes beyond the Federal one. It's pretty hard to misinterpret as to who that right applies to.
Quote:
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
Some state's have no such provisions other than to rely on and abide by the Federal Constitution.
However and by his own admission the Supreme Court has already ruled that the individual rights afforded to us under the Federal Constitution applies to the state's as well. Apparently he does not agree with that, but there's not a God damn thing he can do about it.
Quote:
Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights | Boundless Political ...
courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-political...
The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, but has since been expanded to apply to the states as well. The Bill of Rights includes protections such as freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly; the right to due process and fair trials; the right to personal property and other rights.
You've got to understand that this individual is an attorney. They don't call them "liars for hire" for nothing.
I'm sure that you could find another attorney that has a different opinion than his? Just as you have both a defense attorney and a prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial or civil suit. One of them is gonna' win and another is gonna' lose. It doesn't make either one of them right or wrong. It's their job to argue cases that benefit one side or the other. That does not make all attorney's Constitutional Scholars.
A lot of state's have their own individual Constitutional provisions that may or may not go beyond the Federal Constitution. My home state of Arizona has its own 2nd Amendment provision that goes beyond the Federal one. It's pretty hard to misinterpret as to who that right applies to.
Some state's have no such provisions other than to rely on and abide by the Federal Constitution.
Sure, he could. The only problem is that my position is the originalist, constitutional conservative position. You can find someone who believes in a "living constitution" who would argue otherwise. But the historical record speaks for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
However and by his own admission the Supreme Court has already ruled that the individual rights afforded to us under the Federal Constitution applies to the state's as well. Apparently he does not agree with that, but there's not a God damn thing he can do about it.
That's what I don't understand from you or the other poster. No where does my post state or suggest that I disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions that most of the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights also apply to the states. In fact, I applauded the Chicago v. McDonald opinion, which held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, and continue to condemn those lower level courts that don't faithfully apply that decision. And I regularly defend the 2nd Amendment in this forum. But that doesn't change the reality that the 2nd Amendment as originally written only limited federal, not state, power. People claiming otherwise are ignoring or simply fail to grasp the historical and legal record and context of the Bill of Rights as originally adopted.
My problem with the incorporation doctrine as established by the Supreme Court is that I do not think that it exists as a matter of "due process" via the 14th Amendment. Rather, similar to Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, I subscribe to an incorporation principle on the basis of the "Privileges or Immunities" clause, which reads:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Relying on the Due Process clause to incorporate most of the Bill of Rights against the state governments requires the kind of legal mind maneuvers that makes a mockery of the law, and is similar to the ridiculous legal maneuvering that established a right to privacy for abortion purposes. Moreover, it is not as legally sound and fool proof as the Privileges or Immunities clause, which would hold that most of the Bill of Rights--to include the 2nd Amendment--apply to the states for the sheer fact that these rights are privileges of American citizenship. It is a much more straight forward approach and one that is explicitly supported by the text of the Constitution. I'm just sick and tired of courts making up law, which is even more of a problem when the text of another portion of the Constitution means that they don't have to.
While the 1st amendment DID only apply to congress (It specifically says in its text "Congress shall make no law..."), the 2nd made no such confinement of its command to only Congress. The 2nd said "Since X is true, the right shall not be restricted or taken away." Since it didn't mention WHO shall not take it away, that meant that the command applied to EVERYBODY. Including Fed govt, states, and local.
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that while an accused person gets a jury trial if he breaks a Federal law, he DOESN'T get one if he breaks a state or local law (6th amendment).
And while the Fed govt isn't allowed to beat a confession out of a suspect, a state or local govt CAN (5th amendment).
And while A Fed govt agent must get a warrant before entering your house and searching it, a state cop can just walk in any time and search it from top to bottom, whenever he wants, for any reason or no reason (4th amendment).
And on and on.
Are you sure you want to continue this ludicrous dream that the entire BOR originally only applied to the Fed govt?
It didn't... except for the parts that specifically said so, like the 1st amendment.
And later adoption of the 14th amendment changed that, too.
If you can keep droning a false premise about the Bill of Rights, I can keep refuting it by pointing out the ridiculous conclusions that come from your assertions.
Nice try, but try again.
Let's review: I've supported legal and historical evidence to back up my position. You've continued to spew personal opinion based on a misreading of the Constitution, without accounting for the historical or legal record that went into adopting the Bill of Rights.
But I see this with many who are not law or history trained (and even with some who are). The record is there for a reason. It tells us a lot of how to interpret something. Merely looking at the text of the document now while ignoring the historical context of the document's adoption and debate and original meaning will put you on the wrong side of interpretation more times than not, especially when we are talking about a document that is hundreds of years old and enacted in different political times.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 03-11-2020 at 03:55 PM..
"that the Bill of Rights as originally adopted did not limit the powers of the states,"
In order to BECOME a state they took an oath to "faithfully support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States"
I know most, probably ALL, public officials oaths of office have this phrase in it.
The can pass all the state, county, city, town laws they wish as long as they do NOT go against the Constitution.
*Sigh*
This is getting ridiculous.
Faithfully supporting and defending the Constitution does not mean abiding by constitutional provisions that were never intended to apply to your polity to begin with. Nor does it mean that every portion of the Constitution applies to you
As I've mentioned numerous times, much of this conversation is for naught as the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states today via incorporation. Still, its important to get the historical and legal record straight, which supports that the BOR as originally adopted only limited federal, not state, power.
That's what I don't understand from you or the other poster. No where does my post state or suggest that I disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions that most of the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights also apply to the states. In fact, I applauded the Chicago v. McDonald opinion, which held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, and continue to condemn those lower level courts that don't faithfully apply that decision. And I regularly defend the 2nd Amendment in this forum. But that doesn't change the reality that the 2nd Amendment as originally written only limited federal, not state, power. People claiming otherwise are ignoring or simply fail to grasp the historical and legal record and context of the Bill of Rights as originally adopted.
No offense intended but I think that one of the problems you have communicating your views is that you are an attorney and lose a lot of people with a little bit too much detail and legalize. That it's hard for some of us to understand where you're really coming from or keep up with you? At least it is for me.
Roboteer made some excellent points in his posts #190 and #216 that if I were a juror in a court of law and he was an attorney he'd have the winning argument. It only makes sense as we could end up with 50 different state's enacting 50 different sets of laws as if they were 50 different sovereign nations accountable to no one. After all this country was founded as The United States of America. There has to be some type of overarching set of principles and individual civil rights that all state's must abide by. Otherwise there would be complete chaos between the state's.
I find it hard to believe that the founders of this nation would have allowed for that when drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights? They were brilliant men that knew exactly what they were doing in setting up a fledgling nation. Especially after successfully defeating tyranny from the British government.
Not only that but I'm sure that the Supreme Court took all of this into consideration along with all of the "legal and historical evidence" that you've provided. Before reaching the conclusion that the Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to the state's as well. Otherwise they would've taken your position and we'd be right back where we started. Again no offense intended but I think that I would agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court who's heard all of the "legal and historical evidence" over that of an attorney posting on Citi-Data. An attorney that I'm guessing has never argued a case before the Supreme Court?
Unlike some people who claim to support the 2nd Amendment, BUT. The key word is BUT. I do believe that we are on the same side in support of it and Constitutional law. However the bottom line is and as you've said:
Quote:
"much of this conversation is for naught as the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states today via incorporation."
And yes it is getting to be ridiculous.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 03-11-2020 at 06:05 PM..
As for the 10th Amendment, it is an unnecessary amendment when you think about it as the Constitution does not provide for limitless power to the federal government. It explicitly authorizes certain things, but then explicitly places limits on certain other things. As the political entities that gave rise to the federal Constitution, it naturally follows that the states and/or people retained any rights and powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution. And numerous Supreme Court justices (and a few Supreme Court cases) have remarked as much. In other words, the 10th Amendment merely stated what was obvious.
Federal law is the supreme law of the land only where federal law applies. As the Supreme Court has held (see Barron v. Baltimore cited to above), the Bill of Rights as originally ratified DID NOT apply to the state governments and only limited the authority of the federal government. Again, it wasn't until the Supreme Court invented the incorporation doctrine via the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights was able to be incorporated against the state governments. But, even here, there is nothing explicitly in the text of the 14th Amendment that authorizes incorporation, so its really made up judge law.
But since you think you're such an expert on this, do explain to me how the First Amendment (as one example), which reads,
applies to the states. Clearly, the text only limits Congress/federal government and had no bearing on what the state governments could do. That is until the 14th Amendment came around. While the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly mention "Congress," it is clear from the historical context that the original first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution were meant to limit the power of Congress and had no bearing on what the states could do.
Thus, I repeat that those 2nd Amendment rights people who try to argue that the document always limited what the states could do are wrong. Plain and simple. They ignore historical and legal reality and are making things up.
The only amendment that mentions Congress specifically... and applies to only it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Then obviously the Supremacy Clause was just fluff to be ignored.
Article 6, Sec. 1 Clause 2 was just an after thought? What about clause 3? LOL!
Apparently, you are unaware of the republican form of government, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, wherein the American people are "sovereigns without subjects," and the president is merely the highest ranking public SERVANT, one step down in status from the lowest American sovereign.
But it is to be expected, since most Americans are victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, and are loathe to read their own laws and history.
The Constitution is the law of the land, which incorporates 50 individual sovereign entities and additional territories. You might profit by reading the law, available in any county courthouse law library.
You thinking of the racially motivated...
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was an important US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to private actors or to State governments despite the adoption of the14th Amendment.
US v. Miller
Heller v. DC, crippled Cruikshank by the Incorporation Doctrine
Then the nail in the coffin, to that racially motivated ruling, to keep freed slaves from their 2nd amendment.... Chicago v. McDonald, which reminded everyone of what everyone had forgotten in the past, by dwelling on the Amendments, never looking at the Articles. Article 6 especially.
You don't have a clue, sorry. The first ten amendments all were designed to limit the powers of Congress. Not the states. The Supreme Court already settled this issue over 100 years ago in its Barron v. Baltimore case from 1833.
Then came Chicago v. McDonald and it nullified ALL gun legislation in the USA.
It started getting ridiculous when you announced that originally the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government, and not the states or local government.
I gave you several example of just how ridiculous that would be, and I see you are carefully ignoring those so you can go on pretending you had a point.
Trying to fool people into thinking the 2nd only applied to the Fed govt by pointing out what people said about it later, ignores that fact that initiallty there was ONLY the Bill of Rights, without anybody saying anything about it until later. Yet its plain language still had meaning, before anybody said a word.
I submit that anything anybody "said later" about the BOR didn't matter, if it didn't agree with the plain language of the amendments themselves. And the plain language shows no support at all for your silly idea, except for the 1st amendment as I pointed out. Meaning, your assertion contrary to the plain language of the amendments themselves, is simply wrong. What people said later, did not change the amendments' meanings. Those people simply mistook the amendments' meaning.
What lawyers or other con artists tried to pretend the amendments meant later, means nothing, except to those lawyers and con artists who are trying to CHANGE their meanings.
Are you sure you want to continue this ludicrous dream that the entire BOR originally only applied to the Fed govt? It didn't... except for the parts that specifically said so, like the 1st amendment.
How does that premise square with the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
In part:
....The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.....
It certainly was especially this part: "The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution give you everything you need to know for reading the 2nd Amendment properly."
Apparently you're just to lazy to read it? Or are afraid to read it as it doesn't corroborate your way of thinking?
There are already laws against murder. So what's your point?
The 2nd Amendment does not give anyone the right to murder or threaten to murder anyone.
Your comment makes absolutely no sense at least to me.
"Apparently you're just to lazy to read it? Or are afraid to read it as it doesn't corroborate your way of thinking?", or has a reading comprehension problem and only sees what he WANTS to see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
