Posted on 05/16/2002 6:40:18 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
"No factual reporting about the judge in this article. Simply more bizzare statements from a convicted criminal. I'll side with an honorable judge over a criminal anyday."
And this is why the statist left will eventually win.
Statists are not always right, but when compared to a wacko libertarian in this case, they certainly are.
This has to be the most babbling bunch of nothing that's ever been posted to me here. Please explain.
Good god, you're dense.
Enjoy that fine taste of boot leather, pal.
You'll defend this lawbreaking clown to the end, wont you? Pathetic. Simply pathetic. YOU are a disgrace to our constitution.
The 14th, among other things, made the States abide by the 1st.
Obviously, Denver would not be allowed to deny certain citizens the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the right to not incriminate themselves, or subject them to warrantless searchs. Or at least the denial of all those would be theoretically subject to suit for denial of rights, home rule or no.
He's an idiot.
Um Roscoe, did you miss this little part of the article:
"Yes," said the city's attorney. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city."
They aren't even hiding the fact that they are in complete disregard of the Constitution. Given that the Constitution is the charter that the people use to grant powers to government, just where does Denver derive its political power??? How could such a government be called just? Why shouldn't citizens call it like it is? Is it idiotic to even speak the naked truth?
Have you no limit to what you would tolerate without even a complaint? Roscoe, just how far would this city have to go to elicit a negative response from you? Cattle cars???
The city and county of Denver shall alone always constitute one judicial district of the state.
As you can plainly see, the judicial district of Denver is part of the state of Colorado. The Constitution was created with the Enabling Act which was submitted to Congress for statehood. Further, Article XX was not ratified until 1902 (Colorado was admitted to the Union in 1900 - thus the Centinial State). It was at that time that "Home Rule" meaning limited self government was enacted.
Denver's home rule was CREATED by the Colorado Constitution and thus is subject to the CO Constitution, which was established during statehood and thus submitted under the US Constititution.
Man we have some dumb (and VERY liberal) Judges here in Colorado. During election years, I have adopted the practice of voting against every Judge on the ticket.
What Constitution do you think that is a reference to?
As I understand it, the Colorado state Constitution allows a "home rule city" to pass legislation in some cases more restrictive than state law.
This report seems to be confusing some distinct issues. Colorado has general statutes that govern city administration unless the citizens vote for "home rule" and adopt a charter, in which case a number of the state rules can be altered. Denver in a home rule city.
No city, however, can opt out of the State or Federal Constitution. It appears that the judge simply ruled Denver's ordinance governing the carry of firearms constitutional under both Constitutions. I'm not saying I necessrily agree this is the proper interpretation, but it is in the mainstream of SCOTUS's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment.
I see that this opens the door to appeal. I am ticked at the gall of Denver officials to prsume they are above the state and federal constitutions.
I am not holding my breath about the Colo supremes, either. But the game is on and we shall see.
FReegards
What's the point of declaring/defining/recognizing a RIGHT if any lower jurisdiction can revoke it?
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.