Posted on 08/25/2009 8:30:52 AM PDT by neverdem
It appears that the 9th Circus is a day late and a dollar short.
Very odd. Everyone seems to take it for granted that all other Amendments were incorporated. I’m curious why some think the First and Fifth were and the Second wasn’t.
If the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, then neither does the rest of the Bill of Rights.
By what twisted logic could the 2nd amendment NOT apply to state and local government?
That’s like saying that your city could strip away your right to free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. even though the Feds can’t.
— Mr. YGTG (aka ‘Nervous Tick’)
What??????? The Heller case already **did** that.It affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens as well as "the militia" and struck down at least one District of Columbia law/ordinance.
Lawyers...help me out here.Am I hallucinating or am I correct?
False. Grand jury.
The wording of the Bill of Rights agreed upon by the Founding Fathers was a very important debate. They were not sloppy or careless. Some of the Amendments had boundaries established in them, other did not. The First Amendment states that "congress shall pass no laws" but did not directly deal with the powers or limitations of the states with respect to the freedom of speech, assembly, etc. The Second Amendment is absolute in its language by stating "shall not be infringed".
I'm not so sure. Let's say the full Ninth Circuit reverses the earlier panel decision. There would no longer be a circuit split, and much less reason for the Court to weigh in.
Besides, the Heller decision appears as if it was written in such a way as to ensure they could get Kennedy. Let's not be in a rush to create bad law.
As someone else has already pointed out, the right to a grand jury is “absolute” under the Fifth Amendment, but in my state, I can be charged on an information. Completely constitutional.
That tortured rationalization was unanimously rejected by the United States Supreme Court 176 years ago.
“Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.”—Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Is this a rhetorical musing?
HERE is an exploration of the selective incorporation abomination.
The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497 [1]) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521 [2]).
IIRC, by agreeing to hear those petitions, SCOTUS has "granted cert." Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't know if you're a lawyer or not but....the District of Columbia,like every state,county and municipality,passes "laws" and enacts "ordinances" by means of its "City Council" and Mayor that are unique to the District.Laws/ordinances regarding littering...parking...taxation...snow removal...murder...etc,etc.
Yes,under Federal law DC is a unique governmental entity but,in this case at least,these seem like distinctions without a difference.
I would think that the Equal Protection clause just might apply here.
(GSC glances at his diploma from the Close Cover Before Striking School of Law)
If the County Supervisor thinks guns are worshiped as deities then the gun show people should argue first amendment free exercise of religion.
IIRC, all of the other amendments have been selectively incorporated in whole or in part by either the privileges and immunity clause or the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in specific cases before SCOTUS with the exceptions of the 2nd, 3rd, 9th and 10th Amendments. IIRC, most, if not all, were due process arguments.
Does your comment mean that you agree with the omission of the grand jury protection from application to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment?
If so, what is so distinctive about that particular protection that justifies such omission? Or are you simply pointing out that the unjustified exclusion of one protection has relevance to whether the Second Amendment is to be "incorporated"?
But the Federal District is not a State. It only established home rule in the 70s, and does not have a vote in Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.