[DugwayDuke]

"No, its not the 'law of the land', it's just the decision of the court in the Cruikshank case. It can be, and is, ignored by many, justly so."

By definition, USSC has the final say on what constitutes the Law of the Land. You ignore that basic fact at your own peril.

"I think 'incorporation' is a silly legality, and a fraud. Protecting the 2nd was clearly referenced in ratification of the 14th. No incorporation is necessary."

I certainly support your right to think as you wish. And, to be honest, I hope your interpretation of the implications of the 14th Amendment becomes the law of the land. Pending USSC action, the fact remains that Cruikshank still stands.

[tpaine]

"No, its not the 'law of the land', it's just the decision of the court in the Cruikshank case. It can be, and is, ignored by many, justly so."

By definition, USSC has the final say on what constitutes the Law of the Land. You ignore that basic fact at your own peril.

Incredible. -- The USSC has jurisdiction to decide cases & interpret the law, not to make it. Read Articles I & III for starters.

-----------------------------

"I think 'incorporation' is a silly legality, and a fraud. Protecting the 2nd was clearly referenced in ratification of the 14th. No incorporation is necessary."

I certainly support your right to think as you wish.

Big of you.

And, to be honest, I hope your interpretation of the implications of the 14th Amendment becomes the law of the land.

It clearly is, always as been, -- if you can read the constitution without an ax to grind about states 'rights'.

Pending USSC action, the fact remains that Cruikshank still stands.

Sure does, -- as a silly antiquated monument to a dream of 'states rights', and to hell with any of the others.