Posted on 08/03/2006 7:03:58 AM PDT by steve-b
You mean like historical facts?
Perhaps you could point out the 2nd Amendment citation in the quote. Lemme guess - emanation of a penumbra?
Not quite. See: 'U.S. vs Verdugo-Urquidez'(1990).
I don't see mention of the First Amendment either. But the courts later "incorporated" it, just the same.
But not the 2nd. You desire for law made from the bench remains unrealized in that arena.
Let's see if I understand you.
When the earlier court ruled that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only addressed things like "navigating the waters of the US", but not the First or Second Amendments, that is perfectly alright.
But when the later court ruled that "privileges and immunities" DOES include the First Amendment, that is making law from the bench.
I showed you where the Dred Scott decision, which greatly contributed to the onset of the US Civil War, used that specific phrase, "privileges and immunities" to include free speech and the right to bear arms. But, because the Taney court did not explicitly point out that those freedoms are enumerated in the First and Second Amendments, that would later make invalid any application of those amendments to the phrase "privileges and immunities".
Since you are so concerned about historical fact, perhaps you could supply some other evidence, prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, that would support your narrow view of "privileges and immunities".
The 2nd Amendment established an immunity to federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Your desire to have bench made law recast that as an immunity to state legislation has never come to pass.
Feel free produce the case.
[crickets]
Please cite, from the Constitution, where such a limitation exists.
Shall not be infringed is the Supreme Law of the Land, the laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It doesn't require a judge to incorporate this as there is no "incorporation" requirement listed anywhere in the Constitution. It applies upon ratification, just like the laws Congress passes.
A robber? Oh uh, that would imply most liberals.
Beg, beg, beg.
"The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone." -U.S. v. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Poor you.
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.