Posted on 05/10/2022 5:58:20 AM PDT by DeweyCA
I like Revolver but their writer gives credit to the crime of the century that has cast all Americans into a Marxist Color Revolution.
If Revolver had wanted to avoid a sidetrack to a more important issue, it should read:
It's not nitpicking, it's important that writers avoid feeding credibility to the coup plotters by referring to their installed puppet as "President."
Marriage is a state issue and that is where it should be sent.
Came just to make sure they didn’t miss Wickard vs Filburn
Yes, and that monumental mistake can/should be corrected without taking 50 years.
Adding Plyler is paramount.
The citizenry is under no obligation to educate the children of other nations, simply because they broke through the gates. There is no right to our taxes.
Prop 187 was written specifically to override Plyler and provoke a test case that would go the Supreme Court. Gray Davis violated his oath and made sure that didn’t happen, thus leading to his recall. But 187 was gutted and Plyler still stands, with the sole purpose of being the vehicle by which the Great Replacement will be accomplished.
Not really.
In Miller, the government made two claims. First that a person must be a member of a well-organized Militia in order to be protected by the Second Amendment. Second, only the possession of arms thar are useful to a Militia is protected by the Second Amendment.
The first claim was simply ignored by the Court. Miller was assumed to be protected.
On the second claim, the Court stated that they had no evidence of the usefulness to a Militia of a shirt-barreled shotgun. They did not rule in favor of the government, but rather they REMANDED the case back to the District Court.
Miller just needed to demonstrate usefulness of his short-barreled shitgun to win his case. Miller was protected by the Second Amendment. No such lower court proceeding ever happened.
Other lower courts simply lied about the Miller case and future Supreme Courts allowed the lies to stand.
This is why it was not necessary for the Heller Court to reverse Miller: because Miller did not say what many lower courts had claimed for years.
There are many decisions which turn out to be unwise but the author acts like the Supreme Court has some no-bag-limit hunting license to overrule previous decisions. It doesn’t. It is limited to cases brought before the court. So rather than acting as though the Supremes can order up a case, you need to find people or organizations which can challenge those cases and has power and standing to drag them all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Thanks for that contextual detail.
But revisiting Miller can address the lack of clarity on the “inaction”, thereby prohibiting lower courts from working it how they want.
Good list!
However, I would add “...Reynolds_v._Sims...”.
It’s done enormous damage to states with large urban centers. Evert Dirkson who I am sure all have forgotten warned that it would damage such states. It would “render rural residents of a state powerless in their state governments”. It clearly did! It has clearly warped the politics of those states; look at California, New York & Illinois. The inability of the rest of the state to check the excesses of the urban centers has made the urban centers almost ungovernable. We’ve seen it played out time and time again. The “Summer of Fun” during the run up to the 2020 election was the inevitable logical conclusion!
I think the state senate ought to represent counties. One state senator per county. It’s the same constitutional principle as to why we have a Federal Senate. It took creative lawyering to forget that and take it out!
Those who want Kelo overturned want a single solution imposed by the federal government. No thank you.
Wick are and Wong Kim Ark are the causes of more harm to this country than any other cases in history.
I would also like to see part of US v Miller struck down - the part which requires someone to demonstrate the utility of a weapon to the militia in order to invalidate the (blatantly unconstitutional) NFA. **ANY** weapon is of use to the militia, as demonstrated by the utility of one-shot Liberatir pistols, home made guns, knives explosives, and a myriad of other weapons against the Germans in WW2. The second amendment places no limitations on term “arms.”
Worse yet, the 1986 FOPA prohibits the federal government from issuing tax stamps for full autos manufactured after May 18, 1986. Thus, in Miller the federal government said that the NFA was not a gun ban, because anybody could get a full auto by paying a $200 tax (which tax should be unconstitutional, but that’s another matter). Then, in 1986, the same government prohibited the payment of the tax. That invalidates their 1939 argument against the unconstitutionality of the NFA. I would love to see a case brought before this court challenging the entirety of the NFA, and specifically regarding full autos under the logic described above. It is blatantly unconstitutional, and every argument used to support its constitutionality is based upon a complete lack of logic and just making up law…just like the cases underlying Roe and Roe itself.
“Wick are” should be “Wickard.” My phone still doesn’t understand me.
Before Kelo there was Poletown
Miller forbids the state from what the state has done since. Subsequent courts, in cluding scalia in the Heller case, have mis-stated what Miller says.
Miller says the state may not restrict the public from weapons used by the military.
Scalia misrepresented Miller too. Now the rule is that if an unconstitutional prohibition is long standing, it transmogrifies into constitutional.
The courts willfully misrepresent precedent frequently. Very few people look up the cited case and "figure it out."
Marbury v. Madison, two points. 1. When there is a conflict between a statute and a constitution, one or the other must prevail. 2. Courts cannot take jurisdiction not granted to them.
Neither of those two points is controversial. What is controversial is courts assigning power to the (Marbury) case that it does not have.
The courts are hostile to an armed populace. They will admit token arms only. There is no way the government will allow the people to control the outcome of a serious contest.
I would put Marbury vs Madison at the top of this list.
I'm going to stop short of denying women the right to vote, but I would be in favor of denying the vote in national elections to persons without real property or a certain level of investment. Of course it would be characterized as ray sis; but racial discrimination is not the point. Having an actual stake in our country is the point.
There are numerous other decisions that have wrecked the country, many of them proto-woke abominations from the 60s onward.
As far as unionized federal workers go, there’s JFK’s EO that got it started, LBJ codified it into law later.
For state workers that’s a harder row to hoe since it would require legislative action in all states.
Since we’re thinking wild thoughts what you all think of this:
A law banning federal workers from voting in federal elections. They can vote in state, county & municipal. State workers can vote in federal and not in state but in all others. County employees not in county elections, etc.
It would require elections to be held at different times, but I think it would be worth the inconvenience.
Nobody is being forced to work in these respective levels of government. It’s all voluntary not voting in a fed election would be part of the plus\minuses calculation of employment. You give up the voting privilege by signing on, regain it by signing out!
I know lawyers would have a field day!
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.