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 ...
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.
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.
Ain't technology grand?!
Man, this is more difficult than getting my 4-year-old to grasp basic concepts. Yeesh...
"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
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.
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?
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
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...
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.
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!
You can live in dreamworld circa 1860, or you can live in reality--it is apparent what you've chosen...
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.