Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.
I already addressed your false assertion. Please see above.
She knows what the Constitution says. She just doesn’t care.
Very good, we've established your position, for whatever reason. How about addressing the meat of my inquiry?
[Given that the states where not constrained,] would not [the states' power to suppress the formation of the militia] render the text internally contradictory [and therefore stillborn]?
“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.”
From where would spring the necessary militia if every state was free to ban its very inception?
If the restraint on infringement where not universal, the enumeration of the 2nd would have been a waste of ink. shall not be infringed
Will Chucky be there on the Court with her to do her job for her??
Uncontroverted, universally recognized historical facts. As opposed to your empty and baseless rationalizations.
From where would spring the necessary militia if every state was free to ban its very inception?
That would arguably be violative of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, as indicated by the Supreme Court in the Presser decision and as discussed repeatedly by myself and others in this thread. Try to keep up.
That's not true. The Court could have found that the 2nd amendment operates against the states, and that if a parade permit law operated to limit keep and bear arms, that the law would be struck down. The eventual upholding of the law was based on the power of the state to promulgate parade permit laws.
-- We cannot continue to argue that PRESSER, or MILLER, or any other case constitutes an affirmation of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court have ruled repeatedly that this isn't the case. --
Presser is a parade permit case. Whatever it says about the individual RKBA (and I don't disagree with your comments/analysis of Presser, that the feds WOULD object to state banning of RKBA because that deprives the feds of a resource - but parade permits don't impact RKBA) is dicta. My objection is that the Circuits have taken a parade permit case, cherry-picked some dicta from it, and then wrongly concluded that the states are free to prohibit keep and bear arms, "See Presser."
As for Miller, it too "says what it says." And what it says is that the feds may not tax a weapon that has a militia use or is useful for the common defense.
While I don't disagree that pointing out the Court's lies is futile, as a matter of persuading a Court, as a matter of public education, political pressure, and legitimacy of the Courts' legal reasoning, I think pointing out the difference between what Presser actually says, and what later Courts claim it says, is worthwhile. Same for Miller as construed by Heller.
That misconstruction of Miller is currently being litigated by Hamblen, in the 6th Circuit. Defendants are FORBIDDEN from directly presenting the Miller case to a jury. That "We cannot say" phrase is a killer!
“From where would spring the necessary militia if every state was free to ban its very inception?”
The “necessary militia” would be the National Guard. The state is free and actually constitutionally required to arm those “people.” It is free to arm anyone else, or to allow them to own arms, but it is not constitutionally required to do so.
REMEMBER, I am arguing above from case precident already decided, not as I think it should have been decided. I fully understand your argument. The problem is that you and I are not Supreme Court Justices.
That's false too. The Presser Court expressly defined what it meant by "militia." You quoted it in your reply. The states cannot prohibit the people ... all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the ... militia.
It's amazing how the liberals & pro-abortionists can find such firm & absolute guidance in the "pnuembras emanating" wisps & vapors from the U.S. constitution as justification for abortion, but somehow are puzzled & perplexed as to the plain common sense meaning of the 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...., and the 2nd Amendment.....the right of the people to bear and keep Arms shall not be infringed. Again B@$tards!!!
So you claim that the 5th Amendment (which includes the Takings Clause) is not applicable against the states (under your theory that Barron v. Baltimore is still good law even after the ratification of the 14th Amendment), and you think that it’s a “strawman argument” when I call you on it? Seems to me that if the individual protections afforded by the Bill of Rights do not apply against the states (as you claim), then a state could indeed take your property by eminent domain without having to compensate you for it (the state constitution *could* afford such protection, but it need not do so).
I agree with you that the way in which the individual provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied against the states leave a lot to be desired: the Court had used the Due Process Clause rather than the Privileges or Immunities Clause; the Court did not incorporated all of the individual provisions at once as the amendment purports to do; and the Court actually incorporated one provision that is not an individual right and which cannot be applied against the states without violating the clause itself (I’m referring, of course, to the Establishment Clause, which is a protection afforded to the states themselves against a federal law “respecting an establishment of religion”). However, it is not an affront to originalism to recognize both that (i) Barron v. Baltimore was correctly decided back in 1833 and (ii) the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, changed the Constitution to provide for the application against the states of the individual protections of the Bill of Rights.
Mentioned “hunting” and “target practice” as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense............
I heard her remarks.She is so dense she doesn’t know the 2nd Amendment is to counter government tyranny. Self defense against criminals is secondary and so is hunting
Not as far as the Framers intended.
it is not an affront to originalism to recognize both that (i) Barron v. Baltimore was correctly decided back in 1833
It's more in the nature of an unsupported falsehood.
However, it is not an affront to originalism to recognize both that (i) Barron v. Baltimore was correctly decided back in 1833 and (ii) the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, changed the Constitution to provide for the application against the states of the individual protections of the Bill of Rights.
That has been how the left-wing judicial activists have misused the 14th Amendment to destroy original intent.
Responding to comments upthread
The repubs have no balls.
This hearing is merely window dressing for the masses.
Dems will lie cheat, steal, obfuscate, filibuster, and throw public tantrums.
Add to that, they now have filibuster proof majority.
Repubs you see < holding nose way up > are above all that petty bickering < / holding nose way up > so her confirmation is a foregone conclusion right after she gets nominated.
One only needs to see the list of rejected democrat justice nominees vs rejected republican president nominees.
Article 1, Section 8. Not the 2nd Amendment.
Congress has no rights. It has limited and enumerated powers granted to it. The 2nd is the Peoples' inalienable right which gives meaning to the power delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. Congress has the power to call forth the militia all it likes but if the states have exercised the power to infringe on its formation, Congress' power would be moot.
While we're at it, I believe I can speak for numerous other Freepers in saying, save the sophomoric insults for those who might be impressed or cowed by them. Conduct yourself as a gentleman and you will be treated in kind. OK?
I was wondering how long it would take for that crazy falsehood to make an appearance.
"And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President."
You must be a law student, because you have some elementary knowledge of the law, are closed-minded, and aren't too good with the social skills. The "fact" is that Gitlow was the first major incorporation case. Anything like Presser that predates that is effectively overruled. Don't message me again until you either learn some Con Law or learn some posting manners.
Go to hell. See above.
And the rest of the "fact" (the salient part) is that it had NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment.
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.