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.
Sorry to disappoint you, Sorta-my-whore, your supreme court already ruled on this and it wasn’t in your favor.
“So you claim that the 5th Amendment (which includes the Takings Clause) is not applicable against the states”
“Not as far as the Framers intended.”
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government, and its provisions were inapplicable to similar actions done by the states." --SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
1947 is 22 years AFTER 1925. Poor you.
No cite or quote for your falsehood, natch.
BTW, enjoy this:
Note that Bingham makes a clear distinction between State citizens and citizens of the United States. Additionally, moments later Bingham goes on to add in this same speech that it had always been “decided, and rightfully, that these amendments, defining and protecting the rights of men and citizens, were only limits on the power of Congress, not on the power of the States.”http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm
In Mohave's utopian dreamworld it does not. In the real world, Barron and Presser are effectively overruled by Gitlow and the subsequent incorporation cases and are no longer good law. Incorporation is the law, whether you like it or not, and the second amendment is one of the "fundamental rights" which is incorporated. If you want to argue based on current law, please state how the Second Amendment rights protected are not "fundamental."
Repeating a lie, however plaintively, does not convert it into a truth. Not even by numerous repetitions.
The National Guard was not formed until one hundred years after the ratification of the Constitution. At the onset of the War Between the States, the vast majority of the combatants in the field were either self-armed or supplied by private citizens or groups.
The Constitution was written by men who led privately or self-armed troops against a standing army of their government which had attempted to infringe on their right to keep and bear their arms. They had every reason to insure their newly won freedom was not subject to the dictates of a national parliament or colonial government.
And, FRiend, I recognize you're playing the devil's advocate. Thanks for keeping it civil.
If the Constitution declares a rock is a stone, it doesn't matter how many courts point out that there are frogs that look like rocks and therefore a frog is a stone. No amount of twisting and turning can transmute a rock into a frog. If the final conclusion violates the integrity of the original statement, the conclusion is void and the process by which it was formed is illegitimate.
This crap has been going on in every titled work classification since LBJ.
Are you a mind reader?
I second the emotion.
Too lazy to find your own quotes? Here’s Congressman Bingham on the House floor in 1866 in support of the 14th Amendment:
“. . . the amendment proposed stands in the very words of the Constitution of the United States as it came to us from the hands of its illustrious framers. Every word of the proposed amendment is today in the Constitution of our country, save the words conferring the express grant of power upon the Congress of the United States. The residue of the resolution, as the House will see by a reference to the Constitution, is the language of the second section of the fourth article, and of a portion of the fifth amendment adopted by the First Congress in 1789, and made part of the Constitution of the country. . . .
Sir, it has been the want of the Republic that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to thoughtful men than that, if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion which has scarred and blasted the land would have been an impossibility. . . .
* * * *
And, sir, it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. . . .”
Cong.Globe, supra, 1033-1034.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0332_0046_ZD.html
And check out what Justice Black wrote about the floor debate (it’s chock full of Bingham quotes):
Opposition speakers emphasized that the Amendment would destroy state’s rights and empower Congress to legislate on matters of purely local concern. Cong.Globe, supra, 1054, 1057, 1063-1065, 1083, 1085-1087. See also id. at 1082. Some took the position that the Amendment was unnecessary because the Bill of Rights were already secured against state violation. Id. at 1059, 1066, 1088. Mr. Bingham joined issue on this contention:
The gentleman seemed to think that all persons could have remedies for all violations of their rights of “life, liberty, and property” in the Federal courts.
I ventured to ask him yesterday when any action of that sort was ever maintained in any of the Federal courts of the United States to redress the great wrong which has been practiced, and which is being practiced now in more States than one of the Union under the authority of State laws, denying to citizens therein equal protection or any protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property.
* * * *
. . . A gentleman on the other side interrupted me and wanted to know if I could cite a decision showing that the power of the Federal Government to enforce in the United States courts the bill of rights under the articles of amendment to the Constitution had been denied. I answered that I was prepared to introduce such decisions, and that is exactly what makes plain the necessity of adopting this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, on this subject, I refer the House and the country to a decision of the Supreme Court, to be found in 7 Peters 247, in the case of Barron vs. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, involving the question whether the provisions of the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution are binding upon the State of Maryland and to be enforced in the Federal courts. The Chief Justice says:
The people of the United States framed such a Government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this Government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations of power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the Government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States.
I read one further decision on this subject — the case of the Lessee of Livingston vs. Moore and others, 7 Peters, page 551. The court, in delivering its opinion, says:
As to the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, they must be put out of the case, since it is now settled that those amendments do not extend to the States, and this observation disposes of the next exception, which relies on the seventh article of those amendments.
* * * *
The question is simply whether you will give by this amendment to the people of the United States the power, by legislative enactment, to punish officials of States for violation of the oaths enjoined upon them by their Constitution? . . . Is the bill of rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven States, a mere dead letter? It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced.
Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that this very provision of the bill of rights brought in question this day, upon this trial before the House, more than any other provision of the Constitution, makes that unity of government which constitutes us one people, by which and through which American nationality came to be, and only by the enforcement of which can American nationality continue to be.
* * * *
What more could have been added to that instrument to secure the enforcement of these provisions of the bill of rights in every State, other than the additional grant of power which we ask this day? . . .
As slaves were not protected by the Constitution, there might be some color of excuse for the slave States in their disregard for the requirement of the bill of rights as to slaves, and refusing them protection in life or property
But, sir, there never was even colorable excuse, much less apology, for any man, North or South, claiming that any State Legislature, or State court, or State Executive has any right to deny protection to any free citizen of the United States within their limits in the rights of life, liberty, and property. Gentlemen who oppose this amendment oppose the grant of power to enforce the hill of rights. Gentlemen who oppose this amendment simply declare to these rebel States, go on with your confiscation statutes, your statutes of banishment, your statutes of unjust imprisonment, your statutes of murder and death against men because of their loyalty to the Constitution and Government of the United States.
Id. at 1089-1091.
. . . Where is the power in Congress, unless this or some similar amendment be adopted, to prevent the reenactment [p98] of those infernal statutes . . . ? Let some man answer. Why, sir, the gentleman from New York [Mr. HALE] . . . yesterday gave up the argument on this point. He said that the citizens must rely upon the State for their protection. I admit that such is the rule under the Constitution as it now stands.
Id. at 1093.
As one important writer on the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment has observed,
Bingham’s speech in defense and advocacy of his amendment comprehends practically everything that was said in the press or on the floor of the House in favor of the resolution. . . .
Kendrick, Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (1914) 217. A reading of the debates indicates that no member except Mr. Hale had contradicted Mr. Bingham’s argument that, without this Amendment, the states had power to deprive persons of the rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments. Mr. Hale had conceded that he did not
know of a case where it has ever been decided that the United States Constitution is sufficient for the protection of the liberties of the citizen.
Cong.Globe, supra, at 1064. But he was apparently unaware of the decision of this Court in Barron v. Baltimore, supra. For he thought that the protections of the Bill of Rights had already been “thrown over us in some way, whether with or without the sanction of a judicial decision. . . .” And, in any event, he insisted, “. . . the American people have not yet found that their State governments are insufficient to protect the rights and liberties of the citizen.” He further objected, as had most of the other opponents to the proposal, that the Amendment authorized the Congress to “arrogate” to itself vast powers over all kinds of affairs which should properly be left to the States. Cong.Globe, supra, 1064-1065.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0332_0046_ZD.html
And contrary to your emanation of penumbra fishing for hidden meanings in that heated political rhetoric for a federal invasion of state powers, Bingham stated:
John A Bingham, the fourteenth’s first section co-author and its acting floor manager in the House, responded to allegations the amendment intended to do more then secure individual protections against abusive State legislation in the administration of justice:http://federalistblog.us/2007/02/supreme_ignorance_aclus_empty_establishment_claims.html[I] repel the suggestion made here in the heat of debate, that the committee or any of its members who favor this proposition seek in any form to mar the Constitution of the country, or take away from any State the right that belongs to it, or from any citizen of any State any right that belongs to him under that Constitution.
By Bingham's own explicit admission, state police powers were untouched by the intent of the 14th Amendment.
Ping
But, unfortunately it won't.
It should start the framing of the next election cycle - the Democrat Liberal Socialists want to take your Constitutional Rights away from you. Along with your job, your property, your wealth, your choice about health care...
While I don’t think the name is appropriate, your general sentiment is correct. I heard a short sound clip today of her mentioning something about precedent and established law in the context of abortion. I took this to mean she wouldn’t consider overturning it. If she is to remain at all consistent, then, she needs to follow the most recent precedent, that of D.C. vs. Heller.
Time will tell, of course.
So how Ms. sotomayor plan to get around the Fourteenth Amendment?
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.
The liberal activist jurist (i.e., Sotomayor) would argue that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Gov’t (and thus D.C.) and not the state governments since the Bill of Rights was passed and originally understood to limit the power of the central gov’t and not the States. Liberals have applied various amendments in the Bill of Rights (i.e., the ones they like, which they call “fundamental”) into the 14th Amendment via the incorporation doctrine. Thus, the First Amend. “Congress shall make no law . . .” has been applied against the States. Liberals will argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right even though the language clearly confers the right to the people as a whole (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”). “Selective incorporation” is the way out for the libs with regard to Heller
C. The Fourteenth Amendment
The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal—the fourteenth amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), in referring to “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; ... the right to keep and to bear arms ...”[134] argued that the adoption of the fourteenth amendment was necessary to protect these rights against state legislation. “The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”[135]
The fourteenth amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Representative George W. Julian (R., Ind.) noted that the Act:
is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South. Florida makes it a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons without a license to do so from a probate judge, and the punishment of the offense is whipping and the pillory. South Carolina has the same enactments.... Cunning legislative devices are being invented in most of the States to restore slavery in fact.[136]
It is hardly surprising that the arms question was viewed as part of a partisan struggle: “As you once needed the muskets of the colored persons, so now you need their votes,” explained Senator Sumner to his fellow Republicans in support of black suffrage in the District of Columbia.[137] At the opposite extreme, Representative Michael C. Kerr (D., Ind.), an opponent of black suffrage and of the fourteenth amendment, attacked a military ordinance in Alabama that set up a volunteer militia of all males between ages 18 and 45 “without regard to race or color” on these grounds:(p.25)
Of whom will that militia consist? Mr. Speaker, it will consist only of the black men of Alabama. The white men will not degrade themselves by going into the ranks and becoming a part of the militia of the State with negroes.... Are the civil laws of Alabama to be enforced by this negro militia? Are white men to be disarmed by them?[138]
Kerr predicted that the disfranchisement of white voters and the above military measure would result in “a war of races.”[139]
C. The Fourteenth Amendment
The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal—the fourteenth amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), in referring to “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; ... the right to keep and to bear arms ...”[134] argued that the adoption of the fourteenth amendment was necessary to protect these rights against state legislation. “The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”[135]
The fourteenth amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Representative George W. Julian (R., Ind.) noted that the Act:
is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South. Florida makes it a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons without a license to do so from a probate judge, and the punishment of the offense is whipping and the pillory. South Carolina has the same enactments.... Cunning legislative devices are being invented in most of the States to restore slavery in fact.[136]
It is hardly surprising that the arms question was viewed as part of a partisan struggle: “As you once needed the muskets of the colored persons, so now you need their votes,” explained Senator Sumner to his fellow Republicans in support of black suffrage in the District of Columbia.[137] At the opposite extreme, Representative Michael C. Kerr (D., Ind.), an opponent of black suffrage and of the fourteenth amendment, attacked a military ordinance in Alabama that set up a volunteer militia of all males between ages 18 and 45 “without regard to race or color” on these grounds:(p.25)
Of whom will that militia consist? Mr. Speaker, it will consist only of the black men of Alabama. The white men will not degrade themselves by going into the ranks and becoming a part of the militia of the State with negroes.... Are the civil laws of Alabama to be enforced by this negro militia? Are white men to be disarmed by them?[138]
Kerr predicted that the disfranchisement of white voters and the above military measure would result in “a war of races.”[139]
Went back and realized that that was a thread ... sorry, my bust.
I get a little oversensitive here at Free Republic with those that have an earnest dislike for the NRA. I’m not sure wheree that attitude stems from. The NRA, NRA ILA, have done more to promote and protect our 2nd Ammendment rights than any combination of other para org. And there is nothing wrong with those other orgs, other than their focus is different. some protect hunters/sportsmen. Others protect sport shooters. NRA’s focus is broad ... the right to bear arms.
Yeah ... I get a little verbose now and then lol Again sorry I missed the thread
This is the new liberal logic. The argument doesnt make sense. I wish George Washington was still around.
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.