Janis R. Brown Anti-Gun?

me

[stevio]

Did I just hear Thomas Soul say, on Rush's show, that Bush's SC nominee argued against owning a gun in California because it wasn't in the states constitution!?

[TomServo]

Did I just hear Thomas Soul

Uh - Sowell.

[snopercod]

She's not anti-gun, she's pro constitution. She ruled that the California Constitution did not prohibit the legislature from passing anti-gun laws. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

And it's the District Court of Appeals, not the supreme court.

[blackie]

Right-on!

[stevio]

Sorry, I caught it out of the side of my ear. Never mind.

[kAcknor]

Did I just hear Thomas Soul

Uh - Sowell.

Uh again... It's Walter Williams. ;)

[tahiti]

The judge is indirectly bringing up that important constitutional question of "does the 10th amendment still exist?"

Did the 14th amendment in effect give us a "national" constitution, thus rendering state constitutions as meaningless, superfluous, and irrelavent?

[TomServo]

Uh again... It's Walter Williams. ;)

But it's Rush' Show. :-)

OTOH - I'm kinda glad this was posted. I wasn't aware that Mr. Sowell was on and Mr. Willams was hosting. Love 'em both.

[b4its2late]

Sorry, I caught it out of the side of my ear.

Must've been your left ear! ;-)

[elbucko]

...."does the 10th amendment still exist?"....[or]...Did the 14th amendment in effect give us a "national" constitution,...

A real bone of contention, to be sure. It is States Rights vs Federal power and influences everything from abortion and gun rights to private property rights vs eminent domain. I think she is bringing notice to this contradiction in our "Law of the Land".

Once upon a time, the California Constitution DID include the 2nd. Amendment. In the 1970's there was a re-write of CA's Constitution and this important right was conveniently left out. Jerry Brown was govorner, at the time. He is now Mayor of Oakland, one of the most gun violent cities in CA.

[snopercod]

Did the 14th amendment in effect give us a "national" constitution, thus rendering state constitutions as meaningless, superfluous, and irrelavent?

Nicely summarized. It's one of the most important issues of our time, IMHO.

[First_Salute]

Yep; and thanks.

[kAcknor]

I wasn't aware that Mr. Sowell was on and Mr. Willams was hosting.

Sorry, I was confused.. ;) We get the show on a one hour delay and... Well, I heard the moment an hour later in the car and it was, indeed, Mr. Sowell on the phone at the time.

[TomServo]

No biggie. If it's any consolation - you had me confused there for a little while.

;-)

[tahiti]

Here in Missouri, even when our Constitution was re-written in the early 1940's, when it comes to gun rights, the Missouri Constitution is crystal clear and unambiguous:

Art I, Sec 23

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms for the defense of >his home, person, or property, or when lawfully summoned in the aid of the >civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the >wearing of concealed weapons.”

So, how do we reconcile that enuemrated, individual "right" within the boundaries of my state, with "federal" laws and federal judges decisions eroding, disparaging, and denying that right?

FYI: There currently is a hugh controversy concerning the conceal carry exception of the Missouri Constitution and the constitutionality of a recently passed law to allow for conceal carry.

But that is a whole another story for another time and discussion.

[snopercod]

Would you mind if I re-posted your treatise on the 14th amendment (which I saved to disc)?

[archy]

Did I just hear Thomas Soul

Uh - Sowell.

Uh again... It's Walter Williams. ;)

As long as it wasn't the Godfather of Sowell, the hardest-working man in show business....

[Fledermaus]

"I feel good..."

[snopercod]

Posted by First_Salute two months ago in a galaxy far away:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CORRECTION: The 14th Amendment did not "subject the States."

The 14th Amendment ensured that the people of the States, shall not be deprived of the protections of the Constitution by means of the State governments. This "happening" is referred to as the "equal protection clause" because the barriers which some states might have used versus other States' practices, and might use versus other States' practices, that deprive the people of the protection of the Constitution, are removed.

Thus, the citizen of the United States enjoys the same Constitutional protections regardless of, in which State they are.

In no way, does this establishment of equal protection dilute any of the power of the Constitution with which it protects the people of the United States of America; and that includes the fact that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which all people who honestly know the English language, easily understand from our American Heritage and the travails of our forebears, that the Congress cannot make a law that establishes an official religion of the United States of America.

The shortcomings of so-called "legal experts" has, over time, however, revealed their arrogant reaches for political power in their own self-interests by mis-representing the many religious practices and traditions of Americans who are obviously not members of the Congress, nor are they members of the State Legislatures, to be "acts of Congress" when, for example, a high school student saying a prayer at a school stadium prior to a football game, is plainly not an "act of Congress" nor making any such a representation for the Congress.

Furthermore, there is no mistaking the truth that the basis of the common law of the united States, is largely English and Christian, but that is certainly co-mingled with other cultures, chiefly of the North American Indian Tribes, France, and Spain.

The common law was from the very beginning, of the Colonies and Territories and thereafter of the United States, and not subject to the federal Government. Yet the common law must respect the 14th Amendment of our Constitution, which is to say that again, a citizen cannot be deprived of the protections of the Constitution by way of a difference in practical application of the laws of the States.

We have seen the U.S. Supreme Court, since 1868, step in to clarify from time to time, that the differences are too great, "in this case" (before them) and on that point attempt a clarification of what is required --- but the high court cannot make State laws, nor can it make the laws of the United States of America. Instead, the high court may decide a practice of the application of its opinion (it would abide under the court's opinion), and the people are, in every case, enjoined to observe this. As a peacefully-inclined people, we generally do so-abide.

But the high court has no martial power. In fact, the martial power of the courts, diminishes with each step down in the federal ladder, while the States' courts retain quite a lot of such power.

Yet we do not live, nor are we bound to live, under any government by judiciary. Such subjigation of the people would have us at the mercy of regents, not judges. And as it happens, in the body of the Constitution, there is no provision for regents; in fact, such powers are banned. Furthermore, the Congress actually has the power to set the jurisdictional limits of the high court, yet the Congress has not directly made that a routine, other than its practice of impeachment.

Meanwhile, the power of the courts, is not to decide the fate of the church, nor to decide what religion shall be, or shall not be, that of the United States of America. The federal courts and the State courts do not have that authority, not even some "emanations from [any of] the Prenumbra."

What the courts in general have tried to do, is remonstrate about their "fair practice" of the law, evidenced by the architectual style of the courthouses.

But a balance is also their duty, in that they cannot deny the historical foundations of the rule of law, as Americans inherited and defend it, that are Christian in many respects, chiefly regarding what is and what is not fundamentally moral in our code of conduct.

It is not a crime to know, upon entering a courthouse, that the foundations are Christian in the U.S.A., while entering a courthouse in New Delhi, India, the foundations are probably not Christian. The parties have a right to know this, and expect some differences in the treatment of their cases; be forewarned; be prepared.

Unless, of course, you're looking for any due process errors on which to make your appeal.

Meaning that a plain building and one-design "judicial tayloring" are no guarantee of impartiality, unless you are a dedicated communist, "a true believer," which happens to be the "religion" of many protestors against the individual protections affirmed in the Bill of Rights.

[First_Salute]

My Iroquois Indian name is Mug Wump, given to me by my father. Means, "deep sleeper" or "deep thinker" or "this is your father making a joke out of your tendency to be mum, either in the horizontal position or the vertical position!"