Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine
I would have to agree with that.
The problem is that too many, way too many, people in this country have come to believe that, "might makes right".
The institution of government should protect against that notion, not foster it as it has done for half a decade, or more.
All right then, what are those "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?
To paraphrase what Justice Harlan once said:
--- 'The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Privilege & Immunities Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
The bottom line is this. The P&I Clause of the 14th offered very little protection from rights violations by the states.
You wish this were so, paulsen; -- why is that?
The P&I Clause was harmless to the concept of Federalism. It was the Due Process Clause of the 14th that was perverted by the courts to selectively apply the BOR to the states, something the Founding Fathers never intended.
Again, -why- do you see requiring due process as being "perverted"?
It makes no sense to WANT a State to have the power to ignore due process.
"What are you talking about? You'd better explain."
The simple fact that the states can prevent you from protecting your life through gun laws abolishes your right to life. Can't get any simpler that that.
< . . . snip . . . >
"Incorporation restricted the states' ability to infringe on rights protected by the BOR. The second amendment, to which you refer, has never been incorporated. States are bound only by their state constitution when it comes to the RKBA."
Exactly my point. The fedguv never incorporated the second. Therefore, my right to life has been jeopardized, as the fedguv allowed the state to legislate away my right to defend my life.
I didn't ask what Justice Harlan once said. But you do like the vagueness of his answer, don't you? Just as you absolutely love the vagueness of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Give me, tpaine, an example of a privilege and immunity of citizens of the United States. Are you saying that the RKBA or free speech is a privilege and immunity of citizens of the United States?
I see your point here. The only solution I see is for someone to sue the state or the fedguv on a gun violation for deprivation of rights. No one would argue that the right to life is not an unalienable right. Whether I choose to use a gun or or a knife or a baseball bat is my business. At my age and physical condition, I would choose a fully automatic pistol, and would probably choose to coneal it as to not freak out everyone when I go to the bank or the deli.
No, you still have the right to defend your life -- just not with a gun.
The state has the power to regulate arms. They've always had that power. They've never ceded that power to the federal government -- as a matter of fact, the wrote the second amendment to confirm that fact.
You don't like your state's gun laws? You can either vote to change them or move. That's the beauty of federalism.
You think that incorporating the 2nd amendment would be better? I don't.
Oh, that's been done. Recently we've had Silveira v Lockyer (a state case) and US v Emerson (a federal case).
The USSC refused to hear either case.
bump
It's been my contention for a long time that the definition of marriage is already legally defined. The Mass. supreme court decided it could arbitrarily change the definition of a word to suit its needs. That is legislating from the bench and usurps the powers of congress.
But even Congress cannot change the definition of a word that is legally defined and in use for centuries. The legal definitions of words are the basis for our rule of law.
Congress already faced that dilemna when it racked its collective brain deciding how to word the fourteenth amemdment. In that the word, Citizen, was capitalized in the U.S. Constitution and had a very specific meaning and was already in use, it chose not to change the definition and opted for the lower case spelling in the Fourteenth.
In fact, Congress had a double-dilemma to solve. How to grant rights to its new class of citizens (lower case) when it knew it did not have power to grant rights, as they are unalienable. It did the best it could by acknowledging that its citizens had all the rights and immunities and privileges as Citizens, though they were considered federal citizens -- citizens of a the federal government (United States), but only by contract.
If the homosexual 'union' dilemma is going to be resolved, I think it has to be resolved in like manner. If the homosexual community wants to enjoy the legal benefits of married bliss, they must come up with a word other than the word 'marriage' to define their status, as the word 'marriage' is already in use and is legally defined.
Then they would have to push for an amendment to gain legal recognition of that word to qualify for protection under the Civil Rights Act.
If they succeeded, it would be a federally-regulated and protected community, on the same order as 14th amendment contract citizens.
In any case, if they wanted it bad enough, it's anyone's right to seek recognition and equality.
I doubt seriously that such an amendment would pass, but at least the homosexual community cannot say they were discriminated against as a class, for the class has to first succeed at gaining recognition as a class. If it fails to do that through the amendment process, they have no case and the people would have had their say. IMO.
If they steal the word 'marriage,' and the courts allow it, the rule of law in America will be destroyed, as the courts will have a precedent that will allow it change the legal definition of any word. Think of how that might impact unalienable rights and contracts.
Do you have a problem with States obeying them as the Law of the Land?
Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states.
You're missing the main point of it.
The --- "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" -- is very clear language.
The Bill of Rights is irrelevant.
Our 2nd Amendment RKBA's is "irrelevant"? Bet me.
I am discussing the ORIGINAL cons, which was ratified w/out a BOR. Furthermore, the BOR did NOT apply to the states until after the Civil War.
You're parroting the Statist line. Art VI proves you wrong.
The BOR applied ONLY to the Federal Gov. Many of the states, for example, (VA included) actually had state supported churches. If you lived in VA,you paid taxes to support the state church. That simple. Again, the prohibitions in Art 1, sec 10 are indeed thin.
Thank you ray, -- its always fun to see another anti-constitutionalist out himself on FR.
Not at all sure what you're talking about here. Art VI does not prohibit the states from doing as they please re civil liberties.
It does. -- You're just refusing to read & understand it.
Again, MANY states (six, I believe)had state supported churches. What is an RKBA??? The BOR IS irrelevant here -- it simply did not apply to the states until after the civil war. Read McCullough vs. MD, brought in 1814, I think. Read the 1st amendment.... CONGRESS shall make no law. Don't say anything about state legs.
Sorry Ray, -- but after reading your recent posts to paulsen, -- I'm convinced you're just another sycophant on 'states rights', not worth countering in detail.. -- I'll concentrate on refuting your idol paulsen.
Sorry. Logic dictates that If I value my life more than some perp who wants to take mine, I will use superior force. The battlefield will be tipped in my favor. If the perp uses a knife, I will use a gun. Laws are for the lawless. The perp is the lawless one, not me. I am acting in self-defense, against which there are no laws except the law of survival.
You're one of those sad little creatures who lashes out at people when getting stomped in debate. Art VI prevents states from legislating against civil liberties? Okay, sad little man, then why did the states have state supported churches? If the BOR liberties were always protected, why do we have the doctine of incorporation? Are you saying that the BOR applied to the states or aren't you. Tell that to Mr. Mccullough who lost his dock to the state of MD and wasn't compensated for it. (MCC VS MD) And NO, sad little, uneducated man, I am NOT a states rightser. States DO have rights. People have rights. The Fed gov has rights. I just happen to know what they are. Why does the 1st amend begin "CONGRESS shall make no law...", sad little man?
You're one of those sad little creatures who lashes out at people when getting stomped in debate. Art VI prevents states from legislating against civil liberties? Okay, sad little man, then why did the states have state supported churches? If the BOR liberties were always protected, why do we have the doctine of incorporation? Are you saying that the BOR applied to the states or aren't you. Tell that to Mr. Mccullough who lost his dock to the state of MD and wasn't compensated for it. (MCC VS MD) And NO, sad little, uneducated man, I am NOT a states rightser. States DO have rights. People have rights. The Fed gov has rights. I just happen to know what they are. Why does the 1st amend begin "CONGRESS shall make no law...", sad little man?
All right then, what are those "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?
In answer I'll paraphrase what Justice Harlan once said:
--- 'The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Privilege & Immunities Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
The bottom line is this. The P&I Clause of the 14th offered very little protection from rights violations by the states.
You wish this were so, paulsen; -- why is that?
The P&I Clause was harmless to the concept of Federalism. It was the Due Process Clause of the 14th that was perverted by the courts to selectively apply the BOR to the states, something the Founding Fathers never intended.
Again, -why- do you see requiring due process as being "perverted"? It makes no sense to WANT a State to have the power to ignore due process.
I didn't ask what Justice Harlan once said.
I answered with his words. You can't refute them.
But you do like the vagueness of his answer, don't you? Just as you absolutely love the vagueness of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Amusing. -- You make vague remarks about my on point answers. -- Then rarely answer any questions of mine. Such phony tactics have become your trademark here paulsen.
Give me, tpaine, an example of a privilege and immunity of citizens of the United States.
Voting is a privilege and we have immunity from having our voting privilege taken away without due process.
Are you saying that the RKBA or free speech is a privilege and immunity of citizens of the United States?
In the sense that all of our rights, liberties, privileges & immunities, and life itself can be taken away by Constitutional due process of law, paulsen, --- yes.
I doubt that even you can dispute that.
Now again, answer the question..
-Why- do you see requiring due process as being "perverted"?
It makes no sense to WANT a State to have the power to ignore due process.
This guy got lucky -- the State prosecutor decided to drop the case.
I am NOT a states rightser.
States DO have rights.
People have rights.
The Fed gov has rights.
I rest my case. Only people have rights.
You're dismissed ray.
What kind of a statement is that?
Geez, tpaine, it also makes no sense to WANT a State to have the power to torture little kittens, either.
It's perverted to find some subjective "fundamental right to liberty" covered by the due process clause of the 14th amendment and then to selectively apply portions of the BOR to the states.
This process gave us abortion, sodomy, nude dancing, and a host of other inexplicable and twisted decisions made by a judicial oligarchy.
"In the sense that all of our rights, liberties, privileges & immunities, and life itself can be taken away by Constitutional due process of law, paulsen, --- yes."
Nonsense. You're saying that a "citizen of the United States", not even a citizen of a state, has the RKBA? Sheesh. That gives them more rights than an Illinois citizen living in Chicago.
I've told you before that you lie. Why do it again?
You sad little man. Still waiting for you to address my last post. "Only people have rites" is a rhetorical flourish that means NOTHING.
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.