Posted on 01/10/2012 8:12:26 PM PST by Cheeks
Baloney.
The Privileges and Immunities clause was included in order to make sure that the privileges and immunities that belong to all Citizens of the United States are not infringed upon by the States. One of the founding privileges granted to citizens of the united states is the right to keep and bear arms. Congress is charged by the 14th amendment with enforcement of that provision by legislation.
If you agree that a United States Citizen does not have the intrinsic and constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then I guess you can agree with Ron Paul's idiotic stance on this subject. But if you are like me and believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a founding liberty, then you would have to conclude that Ron Paul's position on this issue is as insane as he is.
If RP gets it we will need our guns to fight the ragheads raping our daughters in the living room after the bomb has taken out our defenses.
XIV Amendment 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.
This seems to be, beanshirts, a slam dunk for P-Marlowe's view. No state can cancel my right to keep and bear arms.
We all know, beanshirts, that there is no way in the world that in the Founding Era that the Founders would have held a gun manufacturer guilty for the crimes of a gun owner/user. Nor would they have held a whiskey company guilty for the crimes of an intoxicated person.
It was a time when personal responsibility was recognized. In fact, I would argue that the right to keep and bear arms is unrestricted from state to state, and that equality under the law from state to state is unviolable for all of our basic rights, and especially the right to life, a subset of which is the right to defend one's life.
You folks need to do some research on current con-law cases. I suggest that you google (or use your favorite search engine) for “incorporation doctrine.”
Basically, it isn’t a slam-dunk. The SCOTUS has been cherry-picking which parts of the BOR they will incorporate into state jurisdictional rights for decades.
On the RKBA, Justice Thomas agrees with your point of view, but had to write a concurring opinion to express this in McDonald v. Chicago. The other justices who held that the Second Amendment was incorporated via the 14th held that the Second Amendment, the exercise of which might cost people their lives, was not the sort of liberty that the ratifiers of the 14th envisioned in the P&I clause.
The Warren Court was the peak of incorporation doctrine selectivity.
There will need to be several more McDonald-like cases before states and localities quit trying to claim that the Second Amendment is only a federally recognized right.
Very simple: he's Ron Paul. Period.
Very simple: he's Ron Paul. Period.
The purpose of the privileges and immunities clause was to undo the "Black Laws" that had been enacted in a lot of the States whereby the states were denying Blacks their founding liberties, such as the right to own property and the right to keep and bear arms. In many States black people were prohibited from carrying weapons and hence were helpless against protecting their life, liberty and property.
The 14th Amendment privileges and immunities clause was enacted to undo any and all such laws which infringed upon the founding liberties of the citizens in those states.
For Paul to say that the Congress does not have the power to enact legislation that would infringe upon the rights of American Citizens to keep and bear arms is to strip the 14th Amendment of its purpose, which was to protect the very liberties that Ron Paul pretends to support.
Frankly I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court has said about the "incorporation doctrine". The language and history of the 14th Amendment are crystal clear. The 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the founding liberties of all American Citizens and Congress is specifically charged in that Amendment with enacting legislation to make sure those liberties are not trampled by the States.
Indeed, given the right Congress and the right President, Congress could pass a law today which would dismantle all the state and local prohibitions against handguns and carrying concealed weapons. All they would need to do is to declare that the right to bear arms is a founding liberty under the 14th Amendment and that all state laws which infringe upon that right are invalid.
Ron Paul is 180 degrees wrong on his interpretation of the 14th Amendment and so are his stupid supporters on this forum.
I would also think that the RTKBA fall under the due process provisions before depriving of life, liberty, or property.
RTKBA touches all three:
Life: defending one’s life
Liberty: the last line of defense against scoundrels
Property: I own that firearm.
So he’ll let us keep our guns to fire at the nukes that Iran will drop on us due to his foreign policy.
Makes sense to me.
NOT
That part’s just icing on the cake of liberty.
You're completely right on that point. Regardless of what is rating is from GOA, I think he's insane. I won't be voting for him under any circumstance. I'll take the Ricks or Newt before Ron, all over Romney.
Which judge will you get to agree with you? Have you seen this case out of IL?
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2012/01/09/term-jw-01-09-2012.aspx
No matter what the ruling (IL SC is liberal), this won’t get to the SCOTUS. Why?
I’d take Ron Paul over Romney or Obama any day. He’s got some nutty ideas, but that actually would help the GOP Congress as they kept him in check. For certain he’d appoint another Thomas or two to the SCOTUS.
My thinking too when the primaries come to PA.
Paul in the primary, and ABO in the GE.
Good observations from both of you. Keeping another libtard of SCOTUS is key. Depending on who is replaced, we might survive with a replacement like Kennedy. We won’t survive with a replacement like Kagan. What we really need is another Judge Thomas.
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.