Posted on 06/24/2005 2:54:11 PM PDT by CHARLITE
No. Simply because of the plain language of the Takings Clause. Only five liberal justices on the USSC could come up with such an expansive interpretation.
Thanks to incorporation, these five had the wonderful opportunity to express their views to 300 million citizens. Which happens to carry some weight. Which you continue to deny.
"The cities would have had the green light, as far as the Fifth is concerned, quite some time ago had it not been incorporated"
In their particular state, yes. BUT, they would have needed a State Supreme Court liberal enough, with enough imagination, and with the cojones, to come up with this doozy of an interpretation.
NOW, with the blessing of the USSC, the task of implementing such schemes are made easier. It's the, "If it's legal, I can do it, and don't you dare criticize me" -- this time at the local governmental level. Nationwide. Thanks to incorporation.
Riddle me this, KenH. I'd feel better if you could name one ruling by the USSC where the states have (constitutionally) given its citizens more liberty than the USSC. Hell, even the asset forfeiture laws of most states are more rigid than that of the feds.
"The effect of incorporation of the Second, coupled with a negative ruling on the RKBA, would be just like the Kelo case and property rights."
You bet it would! Everything I stated above would also apply to a negative ruling on the RKBA.
You need to take a good honest look at this USSC with its recent rulings on sodomy, CFR, the Takings Clause ... and ask yourself how they would come down on a second amendment issue. I cannot believe some on this board are actually anxious for this court to rule on any gun issue, much less incorporating the second and sending every contested gun issue to these five liberal jerkoffs.
Given second amendment incorporation, you expect me, robertpaulsen, to believe that if the USSC ruled that the second amendment did not protect the right to concealed carry (which they could easily do), it would have no subliminal effect on the existing laws of the 40+ states that now allow it?
In ... your ... naive ... dreams.
It's not a matter of better. It's what's constitutional.
If the concept of "better" is important to the citizens, and if the states can indeed do it better, the citizens have the power to change the constitution.
Well, it may be. And the two wolves just outvoted the sheep. But it sure isn't Constitutional republicanism.
Funny, I called my congressman and one (repub) senator and told them that those two decisions plus the failure to secure our borders make this Government illegitimate, operating outside framework of the Constitution. They both reacted like I just said the moon is made of cheese...
I really wonder if any of them ever ponder what the Constitution says in relation to what they do every day.
Only five liberal justices on the USSC could come up with such an expansive a rights limiting interpretation.
Thanks to incorporation, these five had the wonderful opportunity to express their views to 300 million citizens. Which happens to carry some weight. Which you continue to deny.
This ruling has already sparked legislative moves in TX, VA, and FL. So it appears to have had an effect opposite to what you speculate. I quote from your post #91, which is the correct taking on the Kelo case: "In this case, all the USSC said was that local government could seize property in this manner." It is still up to each state, just as it would be if the 5th amendment were not incorporated.
NOW, with the blessing of the USSC, the task of implementing such schemes are made easier. It's the, "If it's legal, I can do it, and don't you dare criticize me" -- this time at the local governmental level. Nationwide. Thanks to incorporation.
It is still up to each state, just as it would be if the 5th amendment were not incorporated.
I'd feel better if you could name one ruling by the USSC where the states have (constitutionally) given its citizens more liberty than the USSC.
How about Vermont on the RKBA vs. any USSC decision on the Second Amendment?
Everything I stated above would also apply to a negative ruling on the RKBA.
It would still be up to each state, just as it currently is, since the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated.
Given second amendment incorporation, you expect me, robertpaulsen, to believe that if the USSC ruled that the second amendment did not protect the right to concealed carry (which they could easily do), it would have no subliminal effect on the existing laws of the 40+ states that now allow it?
1. Concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment, in the eyes of the Court.
2. Concealed carry laws are State legislative acts, passed under State Constitutions. A negative ruling under an incorporated Second Amendment would mean it would still be up to each State, just as it is now under an unincorporated Second Amendment.
3. Your "subliminal effect" speculation is just that; speculation. In the Kelo case, the effect has spurred efforts at the State level to protect property rights, rather than overturning State ED protections.
Bzzzzzt! Try again with a state law where the USSC has jurisdiction.
And the other 46 states?
Every poster on this board (so far) lacks your confidence in the states' doing the right thing. Why is that?
Kelo:
"Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline."
And the other 46 states?
Criminey, it's been less than a week. And some States already have equivalent or stronger ED protections than the Fifth Amendment used to provide.
Can you give any examples of States moving to weaken ED/private property laws, as you speculate might happen?
I would hope so! This ruling just came down, so the states are still banning this kind of property seizure based on the old interpretation. We'll see for how long.
An example, please, other than ED.
Other than Connecticut? Not yet.
And you have absolutely zero evidence that States will move to weaken property rights; whereas I gave you 3 examples of States already moving to strengthen them. All you have is a speculation that some "subliminal effect" will lead States to weaken property rights.
An example, please, other than ED.
I gave you an example which met your criteria, now you ask for more. Current case law basically says the Second Amendment provides no protection to the individual RKBA from any level of government. States are free to infringe the RKBA. What you said in #91 would apply:
"All the USSC said was that local government could seize property ban firearms in this manner. It is still up to each state, just as it would be if the 5th 2nd Amendment were not incorporated."
The ONLY argument you have against incorporation of the Second is robertpaulsen's "subliminal effects" test.
Other than Connecticut? Not yet.
That move was a done deal before the case even existed. We were discussing State moves as a result of this rights limiting decision.
It's not a matter of better. It's what's constitutional.
You're saying that many FReepers think that the "substantial effects" extension of the Interstate Commerce Clause is Constitutional, but none think that the Kelo extension of the Takings Clause is Constitutional? I can't see why that would be the case.
A day after a ruling by the Supreme Court cleared the way for the city of New London to replace a residential neighborhood with a private development, Gov. Jodi Rell said on Friday that the Connecticut legislature "ought to consider" the state's eminent domain laws.
"Substantial effects" is not a power. It's an explanation.
Congress gets their power to enact legislation over local possession and distribution via the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Which is constitutional.
Can a state allow slander? Hate speech? Vulgar language in print? Shouting "fire" in a theater?
In other words, can a state allow an expansion of the freedom of speech and freedom of the press beyond the limits of the federal government?
They sure as hell can't expand religious freedom to include the posting of the Ten Commandments, now can they?
In other news, farmer Johnson thought it was a good idea to close the barn door after the horse was gone.
You're just going to have to get more specific. What do you mean, "cheered"? Cheered constitutionally? Cheered morally? Legally? Socially?
How were "many FReepers" cheering this ruling?
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.