Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
You say so, we don't know so. Show me how.
The Second Amendment was a restriction on Congressional powers.
There are two cases pending now, one of which is Emerson. I read the decision of the circuit course and a precis of the Circuit Court decision; it's a 2A case, and also a 5A or 14A case, depending on which due-process clause you're quoting. I'd say that is some support for his opinion that 2A is about to be incorporated, that SCOTUS can't put the matter off any longer. We also have the opinion recently articulated by the Solicitor General.
And the States cannot deny my rights, either, under 14A: that is demonstrated by the example of the USC section I quoted.
False. It involves federal, not state, law.
Not at all.
And how would forcing all state courts to submit to your ill-defined requirement for a jury nullification instruction make juries more "impartial?"
Are you seriously contending that you're that ignorant or incompetent or both? The answer is glaringly obvious. Answer: Jurors would judge the law, not just the facts because they were informed by the judge to judge both the facts and the law in that case. In other words, a juror could think that the defendant is guilty of breaking a law but that the law is bogus in this case and should not be upheld. A juror becomes more impartial when he or she is informed that their job also entails judging the law in that case. Cut of judging the facts or cut of judging the law and impartiality is lost.
Do you understand? Or should I hazard a well reasoned guess based on reading so many of your posts on various threads that you will continue to feign ignorance and/or incompetence.
So what? If the right is incorporated at the federal level, the States can't legislate it out of existence claiming separation of powers or States' rights. State and local laws will be in the sink, no matter what the Solicitor General says.
Non sequitur.
What does that have to do with impartiality?
I understand there is a new policy at FR, outlined here by JR:
If someone asks to be taken off your ping list (or otherwise asks you not to ping, bump or reply to him) then you should comply with his wishes. That would be common courtesy. If you continue pinging the person after he asked you not to, and the person reports it via an abuse report, then, yes, you will probably hear from us.
99 posted on 5/10/02 2:04 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
My question, roscoe. -- If a group of us asked that you cease your harrassing replies to us, in your 'style' mentioned above , would you comply?
And you've provided exactly zero evidence from any source, including Emerson, that such incorporation is being considered.
Okay, you say the States have the power to truncate my enumerated rights. Let's not even talk 9A for the moment.
Your turn: Cite a modern example, or a case, in which someone's rights under the Bill of Rights were breached by a state law, and the Supreme Court signed off on it.
Sourceless, citeless, reasonless.
Define "evidence" your way. Let's see if we are speaking the same language.
Congress will pay attention when they get hit with enough of these.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Keep in mind that the prisoners are guarding the cellblock and that all the guards have fled the area. Good luck getting the inmates (er, I mean congress) to act honestly or rationally. What form of attention they pay may be a worse "remedy". At least that is what their past-performance/track-record indicates.
They were written in Latin and translated into English. Evidently Latin is a more precise language for legal matters.
It is because it is a dead language and can't be as easily and intentionally misconstrued.
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
You all know that I firmly believe that that Constitution and the Bill of Rights only limits Congress and the rest of the Federal Government from infringing upon our rights and does not limite (except where specifically mentioned) the several states. Therefore, your State's Constitution must include limitations upon your state and local governments to ensure they do not infringe upon your rights.
That being said, I do believe that the above cited sections of the Colorado Constitution more than sufficiently make Stanley's affirmative defense for him. Denver's laws can NOT infringe upon the rights guaranteed to Stanley in the Colorado Constitution. Too bad Mr. Grant didn't obey the Judge's inappropriate gag order on the U.S. Constitution by offering an affirmative defense based upon the Colorado Constitution. But then again, he probably knew he was going to lose this one and that the Judge was setting up the perfect grounds for appeal by precluding the U.S. Constitution.
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.