Nordyke 9th Circuit opinion presumably imminent - Page 2

Nordyke 9th Circuit opinion presumably imminent

This is a discussion on Nordyke 9th Circuit opinion presumably imminent within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Ah, here we go again, so I thought I'd pop in with a comment on a comment made by Justice Thomas who was making a ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 41

Thread: Nordyke 9th Circuit opinion presumably imminent

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,093
    Ah, here we go again, so I thought I'd pop in with a comment on a comment made by Justice Thomas who was making a presentation, don't recall to which group, but it was broadcast on C-Span yesterday.

    Somewhere in the course of his remarks he stated approximately, "the Bill of Rights was incorporated by the 14th amendment."

    The comment caught my attention (due to our conversations), because in the context he clearly meant the entire BOR and it was plain that he meant the whole Bill of Rights to include 2A--though he seems to have caught himself and later referred to a doctrine of selective incorporation. Oh, and if memory serves, the response was to a question about Heller. Frankly, I just sat bolt upright in my chair when I heard the remark, smile on my face, because I didn't expect to hear that comment from him.

    I suspect that as Scalia implied in Heller, and as Thomas clearly seemed to have stated in his unmistakable comment that the Bill of Rights was incorporated by the 14th, the game is over for the kind of jurisprudence SD advocates.

    The conservatives on the court don't even hold those views.


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO
    Posts
    1,807

    attempting to return to THE SUBJECT of the thread

    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    I'm thinking its imminent as well but I paged through their decision times, and some seemed to be almost a year after the oral arguments.
    Yeah, looks like that 90 days was a myth; maybe someday an opinion will be published.

  3. #18
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I suspect that as Scalia implied in Heller, and as Thomas clearly seemed to have stated in his unmistakable comment that the Bill of Rights was incorporated by the 14th, the game is over for the kind of jurisprudence SD advocates.

    The conservatives on the court don't even hold those views.
    Sure, why don't we toss the Constitution. The Founders had no idea what they were doing. The Supreme Court Justice opinions are just wrong thinking. All of them! (No, just the one's we don't like) Today, we know better.
    That is exactly the mindset of the Obama administration.
    Obama has already said he thinks the Constitution is a flawed document.

    Forget our history and the state sovereignty that has created this great nation. If people on a gun forum want a monolithic national government and disband the states then there really is no hope left for this nation. No different than the one world government some fear.

    Of course, we know as from the many posts in this thread that many want to defend states rights and will fight for them.

  4. #19
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    For those unaware from previous posts, the Supreme Court opinion in Cruikshank was after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and was well considered.
    Yes, it was after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and it was a case litigated and heavily lobbied on by those who lost the fight against the 14th Amendment, who also just happened to be those who lost the civil war--i.e., those (much like you, apparently) who wished to turn back the clock to before the 14th Amendment was ratified and all U.S. Citizens' constitutional rights were ensured against violation by the states, so that they could continue to deny blacks the RKBA and vote and exercise other basic rights guaranteed to them as U.S. Citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The Supreme Court has opined often on this subject....
    Uh, no, it has not. There you go with the misinformation again. There have been a small handful of cases, all of them very old, and none of them since SCOTUS reversed that erroneous thread of jurisprudence and recognized the true intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment--i.e., that the 14th Amendment extends the fundamenal rights protected by the Bill or Rights vis-a-vis the states through the doctrine knows as "incorporation." The 130-year-old Cruikshank holding is doomed the next time the issue is before the court and any competent, informed, and educated jurist knows that (but then, you are an engineer with no legal training whatsoever, so I can't hold your utter lack of understanding on these issues against you...)

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    But hey, on the internet even a contract lawyer can pretend to be a Supreme Court Justice.
    I don't know who this "contract lawyer" is that you speak of (oh, wait, that was intended as a jab at me wasn't it--oh, dear, you really are misinformed, aren't you???), but whoever s/he is at least s/he actually is a lawyer with some actual legal training and credentials, as opposed to an engineer with zero legal training, zero legal credentials, and zero competency on the issue. But even that engineer can make his/her appearance on the internet and spout off on a subject s/he has zero competence in. Which then makes it necessary for persons like myself, who actually have not just basic, but advanced law degrees, and who study and apply this stuff in real life on a daily basis, to come in and repudiate the dis- and misinformation that people like that engineer--whoever s/he is--spread around on the internet.

    Ain't technology grand?!

  5. #20
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Sure, why don't we toss the Constitution. The Founders had no idea what they were doing. The Supreme Court Justice opinions are just wrong thinking. All of them! (No, just the one's we don't like).
    Oh the drama. Dude, come back to the present! The Constitution was amended--i.e., "changed"--to extend the rights of U.S. Citizens against the states by the states in 1868--141 years ago! The states consciously ratified the 14th Amendment, knowing full well that in doing so, they were relinquishing a share of their sovereignty in favor of ensuring all U.S. Citizens' basic constitutionally protected rights!

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Forget our history and the state sovereignty that has created this great nation.
    Dude, it is you who rejects history and fact by refusing to acknowledge the impact of the 14th Amendment--as was explicitly intended by its drafter and sponsor--and the fact that the states themselves are the ones who ratified the 14th Amendment. Good Lord. Yes, the states are sovereign, and as such they have the power to relinquish portions of their soverignty as they see fit and necessary to the occasion, which is exactly what they did in ratifying the 14th Amendment.

    Man, this is more difficult than getting my 4-year-old to grasp basic concepts. Yeesh...

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Ah, here we go again, so I thought I'd pop in with a comment on a comment made by Justice Thomas who was making a presentation, don't recall to which group, but it was broadcast on C-Span yesterday.

    Somewhere in the course of his remarks he stated approximately, "the Bill of Rights was incorporated by the 14th amendment."

    The comment caught my attention (due to our conversations), because in the context he clearly meant the entire BOR and it was plain that he meant the whole Bill of Rights to include 2A--though he seems to have caught himself and later referred to a doctrine of selective incorporation. Oh, and if memory serves, the response was to a question about Heller. Frankly, I just sat bolt upright in my chair when I heard the remark, smile on my face, because I didn't expect to hear that comment from him.

    I suspect that as Scalia implied in Heller, and as Thomas clearly seemed to have stated in his unmistakable comment that the Bill of Rights was incorporated by the 14th, the game is over for the kind of jurisprudence SD advocates.

    The conservatives on the court don't even hold those views.
    Thomas also said he was open to revisiting the Privleges and Immunities clause, which was basically buried by the Slaughterhouse cases in the 1870's. That clause was believed to be the true way of incorporation, not the due process clause. Look at what was said in Dred Scott, how someone with the privleges and immunities of a citizen would have certain rights-speech, bear arms wherever they went,exc.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  7. #22
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    Thomas also said he was open to revisiting the Privleges and Immunities clause, which was basically buried by the Slaughterhouse cases in the 1870's. That clause was believed to be the true way of incorporation, not the due process clause.
    It is fascinating to read the tortured machinations some use to inflict their statist ideals. As Charles Fairman explained in his brilliant Stanford Law Review article, if the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to force the Bil of Rights on the states it would have easily done so. Of course, the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found in the Fourteenth no matter how many want it to be there.

    In fact, Justice Reed, when faced with deciding the Adamson case, proclaimed it was 'settled law.' We have seen, however, that when opinions go against a particular political ideaology (in this case a statist view) the opponents will make all sorts of unsubstatiated claims.

    The facts are simple, clear, and straightforward. The Founders never intended the Bill of Rights apply to the states. It was a prohibition on the Federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about the Bill of Rights. AFTER ratification, its meaning was clarified not once, not twice, not three times, but often and conclusively by the Supreme Court. Every educated Constitutional scholar, including the brilliant Charles Fairman, confirms the Court's continued agreement with the fact the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

    The Supreme Court has never overturned the venerable and correct opinions. It must be followed by lower courts.

    What is more disturbing than the self aggrandizing Judicial branch, which has unconstitutionally usurped power from the people, is that some are fine with the Court changing its minds and dictating policy based on political whim rather than reading plain words and respecting precedent. We are supposed to be a government of laws not of men, but that tired concept is long dead along with the Founders. Now we are controlled by a robed oligarchy. And some on this forum seem to like being subservient and even encourage the dismantling of the great Constitution our forefathers created.

    And some live in a fantasyland, holding their hands over their ears while screaming, "Nanananananana" like a five year old so they do not have to deal with reality. We are STILL a nation of 50 sovereign states and that message is coming closer to the front lines of politics every day.

  8. #23
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,093

    This line of reasoning will....

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    We are STILL a nation of 50 sovereign states and that message is coming closer to the front lines of politics every day.
    This line of reasoning is going to cost Texas Gov. Perry his political career. (If his treasonous remarks on secession are what you were referring to with, "front lines of politics.") Them days are over, except for folks in fantasy land.

  9. #24
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This line of reasoning is going to cost Texas Gov. Perry his political career. (If his treasonous remarks on secession are what you were referring to with, "front lines of politics.") Them days are over, except for folks in fantasy land.
    Not to sidetrack explaining why those old documents like the Constitution STILL mean something today, I am curious as to why you think secession is treason.

    Do you also think that not accepting government blackmail money is also treason? Should the banks not be able to repay the loans the Federal government provided? Should the states not be able to refuse the money the government demands they take in exchange for TOTAL CONTROL of the people?

    Do you really want to see the dissolution of the United States of America in favor of a collective America. Should we disband state governments, as well? Why are they necessary?

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    SelfDefense, is it your position that all existing supreme court opinions are "venerable and correct"? Has there never been judicial activism amongst the justices?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #26
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,093

    Ask Abe Lincoln if he'll talk to you

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I am curious as to why you think secession is treason.
    Ask Abe Lincoln if he'll talk to you. You aren't serious are you?

  12. #27
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    It is fascinating to read the tortured machinations some use to inflict their statist ideals. As Charles Fairman explained in his brilliant Stanford Law Review article, if the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to force the Bil of Rights on the states it would have easily done so. Of course, the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found in the Fourteenth no matter how many want it to be there.

    In fact, Justice Reed, when faced with deciding the Adamson case, proclaimed it was 'settled law.' We have seen, however, that when opinions go against a particular political ideaology (in this case a statist view) the opponents will make all sorts of unsubstatiated claims.

    The facts are simple, clear, and straightforward. The Founders never intended the Bill of Rights apply to the states. It was a prohibition on the Federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about the Bill of Rights. AFTER ratification, its meaning was clarified not once, not twice, not three times, but often and conclusively by the Supreme Court. Every educated Constitutional scholar, including the brilliant Charles Fairman, confirms the Court's continued agreement with the fact the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

    The Supreme Court has never overturned the venerable and correct opinions. It must be followed by lower courts.

    What is more disturbing than the self aggrandizing Judicial branch, which has unconstitutionally usurped power from the people, is that some are fine with the Court changing its minds and dictating policy based on political whim rather than reading plain words and respecting precedent. We are supposed to be a government of laws not of men, but that tired concept is long dead along with the Founders. Now we are controlled by a robed oligarchy. And some on this forum seem to like being subservient and even encourage the dismantling of the great Constitution our forefathers created.

    And some live in a fantasyland, holding their hands over their ears while screaming, "Nanananananana" like a five year old so they do not have to deal with reality. We are STILL a nation of 50 sovereign states and that message is coming closer to the front lines of politics every day.
    Blah, blah, blah, blah... The never-ending appeal to century-old caselaw that has been overwhelmingly repudiated in the century since then with regard to the 14th Amendment. Your arguments have been so soundly refuted and proven wrong--both in dozens of court cases over the last century and right here on this forum--so many times, that it's a joke that you even continue to make them.

    Moreover, have you stopped to really think about what you are saying? Nobody here--especially not me--has argued for an all-powerful federal government. Exactly the contrary: Our argument favors the more expansive reading of protections of our rights against government--both federal and state. The very reason that your position on the 14th Amendment has been so overwhelmingly rejected by the courts is because it was states who continued to disenfranchise U.S. Citizens of their basic rights after the civil war. That was the entire purpose of the 14th Amendment.

    If I or anybody else were arguing for an expansion of federal government power, that would be a whole different matter. But the states did not concede any additional power to the federal government in adopting the 14th Amendment; what they did was to concede a portion of their sovereignty to us, the individual U.S. Citizens who hold the rights protected by the BOR, submitting themselves to the protections of the BOR, prohibiting them from infringing on the rights protected by the BOR--including the 2nd Amendment.

    We all understand that you would love to turn back the clock to pre 1860, undo the civil war and the 14th Amendment, and return to the days when the states could trample on U.S. Citizens' rights with impunity--because there are certain Citizens whose rights you would like to see subjected again to state authority and disenfranchised once again.

    But that POV was relegated to the dustheaps of history more than a century ago, by choice, by the states themselves. So no matter how badly you continue to fantasize and yearn for the day when a state can determine for itself whether or not it will respect the rights that a U.S. Citizen holds as a U.S. Citizen, you have already lost, long ago. You'd make better use of your energy and "intelligence" (your definition, not the mil/intel version ) trying to develop a method to cause cold fusion...

  13. #28
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    SelfDefense, is it your position that all existing supreme court opinions are "venerable and correct"? Has there never been judicial activism amongst the justices?
    Emphatically no. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional power to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not. They have no power to strike down any law. By design, the Judicial Branch is the weakest branch of government.

    However, there is no reason to believe that today's justices are 'smarter' than those they succeeded. What makes Ginsberg any more knowledgeable or important than Justice Waite. What makes Justice Stevens any wiser than Jusice Reed?

    The Constitution was not written in a foreign language. Nothing is too difficult to understand that Jethro completing sixth grade would require a lawyer to figure out. If the framers of the Fourteenth expected the states to abrogate their rights to the Federal government the Amendment would have been worded to effect that result. No state would voluntarily relinquish their sovereignty. Instead, they said one thing (Bingham, specifically) yet the Amendment addressed something completely different.
    That is why EVERY Court opinion has upheld the fact that the Second Amendment is a prohibition on the Federal government not the states.

    What many people do not understand is that the Constitution was never meant to protect individual liberty. It was designed to protect the individual from the Federal government.

  14. #29
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Emphatically no. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional power to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not. They have no power to strike down any law.
    Where in the world do you get this stuff?! What exactly do you think Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution mean?!

    "Article III

    Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

    Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...."

    Do you just make up stuff as you go??? Any first-year law student, after about the first day of ConLaw I knows better than this. Your argument is just completely silly!

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The Constitution was not written in a foreign language. Nothing is too difficult to understand that Jethro completing sixth grade would require a lawyer to figure out. If the framers of the Fourteenth expected the states to abrogate their rights to the Federal government the Amendment would have been worded to effect that result. No state would voluntarily relinquish their sovereignty.
    SD, come on, really... Even if, for argument's sake, we agree that the BOR was not extended against the states via the 14th Amendment, some limit to the power of the states was established by the 14th Amendment, very explicitly: "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"--that means something. Moreover, the 14th Amendment dictates how states will hold elections! So very explicitly the states did "voluntarily relinquish" some portion of their sovereignty. Your argument is beyond specious, it is completely fallacious!

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    What many people do not understand is that the Constitution was never meant to protect individual liberty. It was designed to protect the individual from the Federal government.
    Wha... I have no idea what that means. But I do know that the BOR, which despite your fantasies to the contrary, very explicitly was intended and does protect individual liberty. And I also know tha the 14th Amendment very clearly was intended to and does extend those protections vis-a-vis the states.

    You can live in dreamworld circa 1860, or you can live in reality--it is apparent what you've chosen...

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    What many people do not understand is that the Constitution was never meant to protect individual liberty. It was designed to protect the individual from the Federal government.
    I believe the Constitution was meant to protect the states from the Federal government. The Bill of Rights were an afterthought, and I believe probably a mistake. The original document listed the powers of the federal government. It was never intended that they have any power not granted them by the states.

    The government was never supposed to be able to just take power on itself the way it does now. We have courts that impose taxes. We have Presidents that go to war. Both of which were powers only givin to the congress. We have Departments created by congress that have the power to create laws with no real oversite. The Federal Government forces the States to pass laws that the States and their citizens voted against at the polls.

    Michael

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Vote Imminent‏
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2009, 09:27 AM
  2. Nordyke v. King oral arguments
    By Anubis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: January 27th, 2009, 10:40 PM
  3. Interview With a Terrorist: Attack Imminent?
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 17th, 2006, 07:02 PM