Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Pretty poor thinking.
He can and he did. The productive work of others to establish protective state legislation is now tarnished because a baffoon wanted a cheap headline.
HCI should love Stanley.
If you don't have any Supreme Court decisions to support your position,
how about something from the Fourteenth Amendment's authors?
# 497 by Roscoe
******************
I have neither, Roscoe.
However, the 14th Amendment is plainly written.
"...No State shall make or enforce any law..."
is just as easy for me to understand as the
"...shall not infringe..." part of the 2nd Amendment.
"Indeed, since, by the unvarying decisions of this court, the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action, there was nowhere else to look up to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and the state, at least until then, might give, modify, or withhold the privilege at its will. The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise. There is no doubt of the duty of this court to enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist, and there has been no hesitation in the performance of the duty. But, whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state, so necessary to the perpetuity of our dual form of government, and changes its relation to its people and to the Union." -- TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
******************
The law has no bearing on the right of self-defence.
******************
It was passive resistence, Roscoe.
Stanley is not a buffoon, he is a courageous man.
Rosa Parks, Gandi, and many others would agree.
You think that they were they kind of blowhards who would challenge Jesse Ventura to a fistfight? Or call for Senator Allard to be hung for treason?
"...the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action..."
"...The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise..."
"..whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state..."
-- TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
******************
Here's what I get from that decision, Roscoe.
State governments are allowed to deny trial by jury, to deny self-defence, to deny free speech, to deny religious freedom, and to deny protest of any kind.
Any State may use torture on it's citizens? Any State can arrest people without cause?
I believe that decision to be flawed.
******************
He's a politician, Roscoe.
He wants to be noticed.
I'm sure he knows that a vote isn't grounds for treason.
I guarantee you he doesn't want to go against Ventura.
No, you don't get it all.
I think you're right.
******************
"...the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution
are restrictive only of national action..."
Please tell me what that means to you.
"After declaring that state and national citizenship co-exist in the same person, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As a matter of words, this leaves a state free to abridge, within the limits of the due process clause, the privileges and immunities flowing from state citizenship. This reading of the Federal Constitution has heretofore found favor with the majority of this Court as a natural and logical interpretation. It accords with the constitutional doctrine of federalism by leaving to the states the responsibility of dealing with the privileges and immunities of their citizens except those inherent in national citizenship. It is the construction placed upon the amendment by justices whose own experience had given them contemporaneous knowledge of the purposes that led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. This construction has become embedded in our federal system as a functioning element in preserving the balance between national and state power." -- United States Supreme Court, ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
******************
I see what you're saying, Roscoe. I admire your scholarship, but I believe that I have just as strong a duty to interpret both the law and the Constitution as the Courts do.
My privilege as a citizen is to participate in my government. As a voter, I have a say in who will represent me. As a juror, I decide what the Constitution means, I decide what the laws mean, and I decide if a law is even fit to be enforced.
My authority as citizen is higher than the Court's authority as representatives of my government.
While the judge's instructions didn't have the ring of fairness, a county courtroom is not the place to decide the constitutionality of the anti-gun ordinance. What the heck is the purpose of this question, since the judge had already plainly said he was not going to give those instructions? Grant was yanking the judge's chain, and got exactly the response he was looking for -- and deserved. He's a showboat, and it seems Stanley is too.
This whole thing sounds like Stanley is trying to elevate his status within the LP rather than actually win a case or even start a movement. After all, what other LP candidate is getting this much ink in the mainstream press in Denver?
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.