High-Profile Gun Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court

cbsnews.com ^ | August 25, 2009 | Declan McCullagh

[El Gato]

Of course the Court has no such problem overturning precident when it involves, say, the “right”, to commit sodomy. They overturned their own ruling that was only about 10 years old, IIRC. And it was a “set up”. The two guys, and any accomplices, ensured that the police would catch them “in the act”, by calling the police. (The police were called to a “disturbance” at their location, the guys, being otherwise occupied, didn't answer the door, so the police went in and there they were, committing sodomy.

Now I don't really care what two guys, or two gals want to do in private, but I don't want to pay for the foreseeable outcome, (in the case of the guys anyway).

[Gay State Conservative]

IMHO, the whole DC government is unconstitutional. But to enforce the Constitution, would hurt too many "feelings" and step on too many toes.

That may well be true but I'm not sure that we should pursue it too hard.The result just might be (particularly if the RATS could pull it off) that America gets two more RAT Senators and at least one more RAT Congresscreature.

And that would be...FOREVER!

[American in Israel]

Because Repressive Dictator types do not fear much about us shooting off our mouths because they can deal with that later? Do I get a prize?

[Still Thinking]

I don’t think so. The party wishing to appeal something must convince them at the conference now scheduled, to hear the case.

[neverdem]

ctdonath2, agrees with you. I have a grand total of two corrections. Thank you both for the correction.

[PistolPaknMama]

The Ninth Circuit. Lovely (not).

[neverdem]

For a Teachable Moment, U.S. Needs a Better Teacher Than President Obama (Richard Cohen)

Obama's Summer of Discontent Must Read!

Scientifically Illiterate and Innumerate: Why Americans Are So Easily Bamboozled About Energy

12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[William Tell]

Mojave said: "To establish the national citizenship of the freed slaves. "

That's it? That was the driving force for adding only the fourth amendment to the national constitution since the founding of the republic almost a century earlier? Just to establish citizenship?

You're convinced that there was no desire to stop mistreatment of blacks by the former confederate states? No desire to FORCE those states to justify unequal treatment? What about STATE CITIZENSHIP? Isn't that included also? Wasn't the intention to prevent treating freed slaves as if they were not deserving of STATE protection of rights?

Now that you have educated us to the fact that the justification for the Fourteenth Amendment was to establish national citizenship, perhaps you can tell us WHY that was done? What purpose did it serve? Who benefitted and how?

[Mojave]

That's it? That was the driving force for adding only the fourth amendment to the national constitution since the founding of the republic almost a century earlier? Just to establish citizenship?

Yes. You'll have to seek out abortion on demand and sodomy as a Constitutional right in some fetid judicially invented emanation of a penumbra.

You're convinced that there was no desire to stop mistreatment of blacks by the former confederate states?

Citizenship for all meant equal treatment for all in the eyes of the law, not the centralization of governmental power and the perversion of the Constitution that you crave.

[Mojave]

Not that willful ignorance can be penetrated by the mere presentation of facts, but here goes:

"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States." --United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

[William Tell]

Mojave said: "Citizenship for all meant equal treatment for all in the eyes of the law, not the centralization of governmental power and the perversion of the Constitution that you crave. "

It is not a perversion of the Constitution to be bound by the meaning of the words in that Constitution.

Here is the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment as you have interpreted it:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

You seem to think that everything you disagree with is a "penumbra". Given the relatively unimportant meaning that you ascribe to "privileges and immunities", why do you thing it was included?

What about the "liberty" described? Just the liberty to cross state lines? Nothing about self-defense? Nothing about the liberty to speak freely? Let's hear your list of such liberties?

[Mojave]

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment as you have interpreted it: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment as you have interpreted it: "Federal district court judges may amend the Constitution at will and legislate from the bench. The Tenth Amendment is hereby repealed sub silentio."

Nothing about the liberty to speak freely?

You mean like the right to have prayer in local public schools or copies of the Ten Commandments in state courts? Those rights were done away with by your ilk using 14th Amendment rationalizations.

[William Tell]

Mojave said: "Not that willful ignorance can be penetrated by the mere presentation of facts, but here goes:"

Like some other posters, you seem to wilfully confuse what you believe with what various courts have ruled. These are two different things.

Citing a case from 1898 which is clearly inconsistent with later "incorporation" cases seems a rather foolish way to determine the meaning of the Constitution. It's fine that you agree with some rulings and disagree with others. But the mere existence of rulings that you agree with doesn't constitute argument in and of itself.

To be relevant, you need to include with your cite why you agree with it and how it makes more sense than those with which you disagree.

As I posted above, the Fourteenth Amendment contains much more than just a declaration regarding citizenship.

Furthermore, the cite you supplied does not purport to describe ALL of the effects of the amendment. What part of your cite do you believe contradicts the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states?

It is certainly not "declaratory in form" to include "No state shall ...". That is "prohibitory in form".

[Mojave]

Citing a case from 1898 which is clearly inconsistent with later "incorporation" cases

Bovine scat. United States v. Wong Kim Ark has nothing to do with incorporation one way or another.

Call out your imaginary inconsistency.

[William Tell]

Mojave said: Here is the Fourteenth Amendment as you have interpreted it: "Federal district court judges may amend the Constitution at will and legislate from the bench. The Tenth Amendment is hereby repealed sub silentio."

Once again I will point out that it is fallacious to confuse my opinions with the opinions of every court.

Is it your claim that the pernicious effects of judicial activism would not exist without the Fourteenth Amendment? Is it your opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment actually PERMITS judicial activism as you have described it?

Let's look at the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Whatever is in the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits powers to the States is NOT reserved to the states or to the people. That's how the Constitution works. Amendments to the Constitution are binding against the States. So, whatever the Fourteenth Amendment means, that meaning isn't diminished by the Tenth Amendment. If "judicial activism that negatively affects the States" is in the Fourteenth Amendment, then the Tenth Amendment is irrelevant to that issue. I don't agree with the idea that "judicial activism" is included in the Fourteenth, but WHATEVER IS in the Fourteenth is not a power reserved to the States or to the people.

[William Tell]

Mojave said: "Bovine scat. "

Didn't you cite the case to support your interpretation that "incorporation" is not justified? I didn't say the case was about "incorporation", but obviously the case involves the Fourteenth Amendment. You can't make that connection?

Wouldn't it be clearly inconsistent with later "incorporation" cases to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment is only declaratory in nature and only involves the citizenship issue? I would think so.

Perhaps you could further clarify why you cited the case.

[Mojave]

Is it your claim that the pernicious effects of judicial activism would not exist without the Fourteenth Amendment?

Most of it.

Whatever is in the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits powers to the States is NOT reserved to the states or to the people.

The prohibitions on state powers are primarily judicial invention under the guise of the 14th Amendment. Just as you desire.

[Mojave]

Didn't you cite the case to support your interpretation that "incorporation" is not justified?

No. You asked what the purpose of the Amendment was. I answered with a USSC quote and cite.

Wouldn't it be clearly inconsistent with later "incorporation" cases to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment is only declaratory in nature and only involves the citizenship issue?

Quote one of your alleged "later incorporation case" to the contrary.

[William Tell]

Mojave said: "The prohibitions on state powers are primarily judicial invention under the guise of the 14th Amendment. Just as you desire. "

I desire that no government at any level infringe my right to keep and bear arms.

I do not desire that the right to privacy include the right to terminate a pregnancy by murdering an unborn baby.

I claim that there is good justification for believing that the immunity from federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms became enforceable against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I am not aware that the federal government, or any state, or even English common law included any right to murder the unborn, whether or not considered some aspect of privacy.

Therefor, protection of abortion was an act of judicial activism by a Supreme Court. Such action was NOT a consequence of passing the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor would I sacrifice the protections which ARE contained in the Fourteenth Amendment in an attempt to prevent such unjustified judicial activism.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would stop suggesting that my support for certain elements of existing law extends to all such elements.