Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: publiusF27
OK, incorporation is coming

Leftist love incorporation and judicial legislation. Keep dreaming.

1,497 posted on 07/04/2008 4:29:43 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1496 | View Replies ]


To: Mojave
It's judicial unlegislation, and they'll be lovin' it in Chicago soon!
1,498 posted on 07/04/2008 7:02:16 PM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies ]

To: Mojave
Leftist love incorporation and judicial legislation.

You're actually right about that, but since that particular cat is out of the bag, we're all going to have to play by the current rules.

It is not only leftists, BTW. Only ONE Presidential candidate from either party expressed the view that the Bill of Rights should not be incorporated, and called incorporation a "phony doctrine."

Ron Paul on the First Amendment and incorporation:

The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.

Ron Paul on the Fifth Amendment and incorporation:

If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases – not only when it serves our interests.

Ron Paul didn't get many votes, and wasn't exactly Mr. Popularity around here, as you may recall. I think it's safe to say that attacking incorporation is a political loser.

Legally, the idea that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated rests on the Cruikshank case, cited in the Heller decision. Scalia also left this interesting little footnote about Cruikshank:

23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

OK, so the incredibly racist Cruikshank opinion and two decisions which depended upon it say that the Bill of Rights applies only to the feds. Mojave and Ron Paul agree, and I tend to agree as well, but I doubt this is a fight we can win in court.

Incorporation is coming, and while I may disagree, I'm kind of enjoying Daley's reaction up in Chicago. ;-)
1,500 posted on 07/05/2008 9:31:19 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1497 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson