Then I guess I don't have to read the Miranda Rights any more.
Posted on 08/25/2009 8:30:52 AM PDT by neverdem
The day-to-day running of any city, anywhere, has essentially the same functions inplied, however that does not necessarily bring that city under the US Constitution.
Perhaps it would help, then, if you would explain the original intent of those who passed the Fourteenth Amendment. It is as much a part of the Constitution as any other clause or amendment.
Forget it, Jake. It’s the ninth jerkus.
The left wants the Secret Service and police to be disarmed?
Crazy.
Interesting times ahead!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Then I guess I don't have to read the Miranda Rights any more.
No, Parker et al. was denied at the district court, i.e. it was summarily dismissed because all Second Amendment precedents in the 20th Century said it was only a collective right to enable militias. Parker et al. was appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court where they won in a 2 - 1 decision. Washington D.C. appealed that decision to the SCOTUS after losing the en banc decision. It got renamed Heller, who was one of the original appellants in the Parker et al. appeal, because of a question about standing.
D.C. Petition for Rehearing of Gun Ban Case Denied
That’s what makes this en banc hearing rather unusual - neither side appealed, so there would normally be no en banc consideration given. The 9th took it upon themselves so they could fix the ‘glaring error’ of incorporation (as the majority of the 9th Circus sees it.) When they do, there will be no conflicting District Court rulings. Even if someone decided to appeal, I can’t foresee it being heard by the SC.
No, here you have citizens in D.C. having more rights than citizens in Chicago. IMHO, the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment should swing into action.
No, the other Circuits are still in conflict with the D.C. Circuit that it's an individual right as well as the SCOTUS ruling in Heller. That's why Sotomayor's opinion in Maloney was lame. The latest precedent was Heller from SCOTUS. That's what the 9th Circuit used in Nordyke.
My mistake. I meant to type Circuit not District - had district on my mind since it's the District of Columbia.
You're right, they did, but that was my point - I think the en banc 9th will overturn that, saying that Heller only applies in DC.
If that's the case, who's going to appeal to the SC, since no one appealed to the 9th en banc? If someone does, I'd be surprised if the SC takes it. Mind you, I'd like to be surprised.
If that's the case, who's going to appeal to the SC, since no one appealed to the 9th en banc? If someone does, I'd be surprised if the SC takes it. Mind you, I'd like to be surprised.
Nordyke might not get to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS has MacDonald's and the NRA's petitions in their docket. Maloney could get there too.
That may not be true now, Eleanor Holmes Norton, may have been granted a vote by Pelosi, at least it was being discussed.
To establish the national citizenship of the freed slaves.
Now you justify perverting the Bill of Rights.
Only partially true. Miller never said it was a collective right, only that it was intended to enable militias. That was the most recent Supreme Court decision priot to Heller. I think. It at least implied that keeping and bearing arms suitable for militia use by individuals is protected. Saying:
the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ... And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Militia purposes is not the same as "organized militia only".
I'm not a lawyer but you are only partly correct. Because the Heller case was in DC, the question of applicability to states and their local subdivisions did not arrise. Heller stands for the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an *Individual* right, not one to be used *only* for collective defense.
The Next Step is to get it applied to the states.
Of course it's a step that should not be needed, but because of some early post 14th amendment cases, both firearms related and otherwise, it is unfortuately needed. If those early cases had ruled properly, based on the understanding of the authors of the 14th amendment, that the Privelges and Immunities clasue was intended to stop the states from violating/infringing upon the rights protected by the first 8 (or 9) amendments to the federal Constitution, then once the Second was held to protect an individual right, it would have been automatically "incorporated". The way things are, with the Supreme Court loathe to directly overturn its own "precidents", they have been "incorporating" the protections of the various amdendments via the "due process" clause of the 14th, with some consideration being given to wether a right is "essentional to *ordered* liberty" or some such twaddle. (If it wasn't essential it would not be in the Bill of Rights). The first amendment is incorporated, as are most of the rest, some only partially. The 3rd and parts of the 6th and 7th have also not been incorporated.
It's actually more complicated than that. Initially the Supreme Court ruled that the "Privileges and Immunities" protected from state infringement are only those unique to federal citizenship, such as the right to use the navigable waterways or to freely travel across state lines. That's not what the authors and ratifiers of the 14th understood the P&I clause to mean, but that's what the Court said (in a case not related to keeping and bearing arms).
Later courts, in realizing the error of those early decisions, have overturned most of them, on the basis not of the P&I clause, but rather a tortured rendition of the "due process" clause, and occasionally on "equal protection" grounds (also in the 14th).
Theoretically all those DC laws and ordances are subject to approvally by Congress, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,
IMHO, the whole DC government is unconstitutional. But to enforce the Constitution, would hurt too many "feelings" and step on too many toes.
In a way it's the Court getting around it's early defying of the 14th. It's just that being lawyers, they can't just say. "We screwed up back in the 1870s and 80s." (We being the Court), so they feel obligated to worm their way around the earlier "precident", rather than directly overturn it. However the process does give those who don't like a particular right, the opportunity to allow the states to deny it to the people.
Without a Constitutional amendment? The rest of us should sue, but we probably would be deemed not to have standing to have the Constitution enforced.
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.