From Elliot's. Again, we see the "shall be valid as part of the Constitution" language. Once ratified, it becomes part of the "Supreme Law of the Land".
End of story.
Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem
On March 9, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling. It declared in a 2-1 decision that the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession in private homes, in effect since 1976, is unconstitutional. The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."
It is quite likely that this ruling will be appealed to Supreme Court, which hasn't offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment since 1939.
Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."
The Post accused the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration's Justice Department of trying "to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."
But actually, to argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is a reinterpretation of the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.
One of the major concerns of the anti-Federalists during the debate over the Constitution in 1787 was the fact that the new document lacked a Bill of Rights. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the framers promised to pass a Bill of Rights during the First Congress as amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment with its right to keep and bear arms became part of that package.
What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Was the right to bear arms a collective right for militias, or an individual right for all citizens? The "Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority," from the debates of 1787, is telling. This document speaks...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
LOL - another person who chooses to ignore reality. Break a NYC or Chicago gun law and then write us from your real jail and tell us if the 2nd amendment applies to the states.
You can ignore that all you want but that is legal reality. Local officials, as you guys have repeatedly pointed out, have a sworn oath to uphold the constitution. Through the process of judicial review, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states.
Do you think that Gore should have just ignored the Bush v Gore decision and refused to give up the whitehouse? We have SCOTUS judicial review (it existed long before Marbury v Madison) for situations where there is a constitutional question and if we don't like the results then we pass and amendment or try to get it overruled by a more reasonable court.
Somehow the courts have had no problem overturning rulings such as Plessy v. Ferguson but have refused to overturn Barron v Baltimore, even though it was made by a "senile old man trying to save the union". Why would liberal courts such as the Warren court not just overturn Barron rather than apply everything piecemeal?
By your logic, every SCOTUS, congress and executive in the last 175 years has been corrupt.
Nice. I have never seen that, good to know I see eye to eye with JimRob on this.
RP, looks like you are out of sync with more founders than you realized. Ha!
I can hardly wait until my daughter (almost 4) is old enough to train up. Got a son on the way, but it'll be a few years for him too... My father started me at 7, seems a good age to start in with some basics.
Who knows, maybe by then I'll have gotten around to adding some Class III toyz to my "tool chest" as well.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Who said anything about judicial notice. It is very unclear whether the intent of the 14th was to incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. That has been the result, and one that I am happy with.
You can state that the 14th amendment was perfectly clear on this but somehow took almost 60 years (1925) for anyone to realize.
To be honest, you are part of the problem rather than part of the problem. All the gun grabbers have to do is point to people like you who do not live in reality and (unfairly) label you a "gun nut" and it scares the rest of the country into pushing for more anti-gun legislation.
How many times are you going to post the same question and get beaten down? The amendments were limitations on the federal government. This was solidified by the 1883 SCOTUS ruling.
If the SCOTUS got it wrong, then we have had 175 years to expressly correct that mistake. The 14th amendment could have easily said that the Bill of Rights applies to the states but it didn't.
What's impressive is that he's done this to dozens, if not hundreds, of threads.
It is a real comfort to know that yer lil' goblins can fight back against life's real goblins.
Including those who use the First Amendment to trash and misinterpret the Second.
LOL - another person who chooses to ignore reality. Break a NYC or Chicago gun law and then write us from your real jail and tell us if the 2nd amendment applies to the states. You can ignore that all you want but that is legal reality. Local officials, as you guys have repeatedly pointed out, have a sworn oath to uphold the constitution.
Yep, and as Marshall pointed out in 1803, laws that contravene the Constitution are null & void, and ~all~ officials are duty bound by oath to ignore such infringements.
-- You are ignoring ~that~ reality.
Through the process of judicial review, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states.
Prove it. You simply made that one up.
Do you think that Gore should have just ignored the Bush v Gore decision and refused to give up the whitehouse?
He never ~had~ the whitehouse. -- Are you getting desperate? You're taking weird positions in those last couple lines.
We have SCOTUS judicial review (it existed long before Marbury v Madison) for situations where there is a constitutional question and if we don't like the results then we pass and amendment or try to get it overruled by a more reasonable court. Somehow the courts have had no problem overturning rulings such as Plessy v. Ferguson but have refused to overturn Barron v Baltimore, even though it was made by a "senile old man trying to save the union". Why would liberal courts such as the Warren court not just overturn Barron rather than apply everything piecemeal?
Barron was overturned by the 14th, just as I addressed in my last post, which you cannot refute.
By your logic, every SCOTUS, congress and executive in the last 175 years has been corrupt.
No, that's your desperate interpretation of my logic. - Logic you can't refute. Try to counter the facts in my last post, -- or give it up.
No it isn't.
14th. Sect 1
Section 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.
Clear as fine cut crystal.
I am a "gun nut". I've read the Constitution. I understand the basic philosophical points the Founders were operating under. I've even read the Papers, Debates, and the actual text of the legislation in question itself where I can find it. Their "fear" is entirely artificial and comes from the last couple of decades of liberal gun grabbers and their leftist media cohorts demonizing the entire "gun culture".
That's their problem and in no way minimizes my Rights.
Barron v Baltimore 1833. How could you have missed this?
After the passage of the 14th amendment, the 2nd has not been incorporated (yet).
Like it or not, Barron v Baltimore is still in play when it comes to the 2nd. You can ignore it all you want, but our system of government says it is.
From Elliot's. Again, we see the "shall be valid as part of the Constitution" language. Once ratified, it becomes part of the "Supreme Law of the Land".
End of story.
Marshall was wrong...
The why did it take almost 60 years for anyone to realize that? There are still many, many people who feel that the "incorporation" angle is faulty and overreaching.
Again, if the Bill of Rights are considered to be limitations only upon the federal government, then how could they be considered "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"?
The SCOTUS doesn't even see it the way you do and instead use the approach that some liberties are so essential that they must be protected under due process of law.
To be clear, I want the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states - I'm just living in reality though and know that Barron v Baltimore is still in play and that it must either be overturned (not likely) or gone around via 14th amendment incorporation.
Maybe that's because, right at the top, it says that "WE the People.. establish this Constitution?" If the authors didn't say otherwise, shouldn't we assume that they meant the people who established the Constitution?
-PJ
Hey, I'm over here - once you get through beating that straw man let me know.
When have I or anyone else on this thread ever said that the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land? Never. The Bill of Rights were considered limits only on federal power.
jwalsh, maybe I'm just not wording something well here. I remember discussing incorporation with you in the past. Do you have anything to add that might help make this more clear to those that deny Barron v Baltimore?
You can say that all you want, but his court actually ruled on the matter and until it is overturned by the SCOTUS or via amendment, his take stands.
Before you say the 14th overturned it, the SCOTUS has ruled that it did not, so again, until those rulings are overturned their take stands.
Because governments don't like to give up power?
Again, if the Bill of Rights are considered to be limitations only upon the federal government, then how could they be considered "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"?
They weren't limitations only on one or the other. These are blanket protections for individual Rights. That neither the Fed nor the States had a just power to infringe.
To be clear, I want the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states
No you don't. Everything you are posting fights against the very reasoning that would do just that.
The SCOTUS is as bound by the provisions in the Constitution as the other two branches. That they have exceeded their authority should be plain. They have no power to enact legislation. By coming up with their "incorporation doctrine", they have done just that.
Wrong.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle 1829.
The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. James Madison 1833.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. St. George Tucker. 1803
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112
"Were [a right] to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not necessary for... peace and safety... as to render its use impracticable,... it would then be an injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:178
"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
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.