"Federal Court Says You Can Record the Cops"

[CaptainAmerica]

Remember that nutcase cop who arrested a bystander for recording a public crime scene? Yeah, that was a violation of the First Amendment, according to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. This is great news.

The ruling originates with a suit filed by Boston attorney Simon Glik, who was arrested for recording another arrest in the middle of the Boston Common. You know, the enormous, oldest public park in America. A pretty public place.


http://gizmodo.com/5835723/federal-court-says-you-can-record-the-cops


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI38MnpAlW4&feature=player_embedded

[libertybrewcity]

the cops and idiot

[CaptainAmerica]

the cops and idiot Most of them are complete control freaks.

[iGGz]

Damn, I thought he was going to run the guy over at the end ...that deserves a ticket.

[RCA]

But...what 'bout dem States' rights like bannin' guns?

[CaptainAmerica]

But...what 'bout dem States' rights like bannin' guns? can you make sense?

[RCA]

can you make sense?

The "Chicago Gun Ban" was supported by many forum members when it was overturned by the Supreme Court. Their basis was States' Rights.

[CaptainAmerica]

The "Chicago Gun Ban" was supported by many forum members when it was overturned by the Supreme Court. Their basis was States' Rights. they must be completely stupid to have supported a gun ban as "state rights". State constitutions do not override the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[RCA]

they must be completely stupid to have supported a gun ban as "state rights". State constitutions do not override the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Exactly. Not only was the issue clearly settled by the Constitution, but also by Natural Law which is what the Constitution is based on. Unfortunately, Ron Paul himself also supported the Chicago Gun Ban and that, in my opinion, was the reason a large chunk of his supporters did as well. Even Ron Paul is wrong every once in a while, and there are "Ron Paul sheep" believe it or not. BTW, Andrew Napolitano DID NOT support the Chicago Gun Ban. He's my favorite minarchist. :-)

[CaptainAmerica]

Exactly. Not only was the issue clearly settled by the Constitution, but also by Natural Law which is what the Constitution is based on. Unfortunately, Ron Paul himself also supported the Chicago Gun Ban and that, in my opinion, was the reason a large chunk of his supporters did as well. Even Ron Paul is wrong every once in a while, and there are "Ron Paul sheep" believe it or not. BTW, Andrew Napolitano DID NOT support the Chicago Gun Ban. He's my favorite minarchist. :-) I thought the gun ban in Chicago being overturned was what occurred. Are you sure about this? I need a source verified about Ron Paul if you claim that

[RCA]

It WAS overturned. Ron Paul and some of his supporters including Jack Hunter disagreed with the Supreme Court.

[CaptainAmerica]

It WAS overturned. Ron Paul and some of his supporters including Jack Hunter disagreed with the Supreme Court. Thats insane. The very purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to recognize "UNALIENABLE" rights and establish them as protected under the law of the land.I just watched Jack Hunters criticism of the overturn of Chicago's Gun Ban. What a complete idiot. Jack Hunter is a complete idiot now in my opinion.So basically Jack Hunter would also see the "ban on filming cops" as legitimate as well.Jack Hunter thinks that the 2nd amendment does not belong to the individual...unbelievable how intellectually stupid he is on this topic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4&feature=player_embedded

[heavenlyboy34]

Thats insane. The very purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to recognize "UNALIENABLE" rights and establish them as protected under the law of the land.I just watched Jack Hunters criticism of the overturn of Chicago's Gun Ban. What a complete idiot. Jack Hunter is a moron now in my opinion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4&feature=player_embedded
You are confusing the constitution and the DoI. The former says nothing about unalienable rights. In fact, the rights listed in the Constitution can easily be violated, and the best you can hope for is that MAYBE the courts or the legislature will help you out someday. On top of that, whoever can afford the best attorneys usually winds, even if they're technically in the wrong.

[Anti Federalist]

Thats insane. The very purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to recognize "UNALIENABLE" rights and establish them as protected under the law of the land.I just watched Jack Hunters criticism of the overturn of Chicago's Gun Ban. What a complete idiot. Jack Hunter is a moron now in my opinion.

Incorporation and the 14th Amendment opens up another can of worms.

It's not as black and white as you think.

For the record, I was in favor of the court's overturn of the Chicago ban.

Call me a hypocrite if you must, I'll support any action at any level that protects individual rights.

[CaptainAmerica]

You are confusing the constitution and the DoI. The former says nothing about unalienable rights. In fact, the rights listed in the Constitution can easily be violated, and the best you can hope for is that MAYBE the courts or the legislature will help you out someday. On top of that, whoever can afford the best attorneys usually winds, even if they're technically in the wrong. forget it, Im not gonna bother debating you....this is ridiculous.

[CaptainAmerica]

Incorporation and the 14th Amendment opens up another can of worms.

It's not as black and white as you think.

For the record, I was in favor of the court's overturn of the Chicago ban.

Call me a hypocrite if you must, I'll support any action at any level that protects individual rights. When becoming a state the state must abide by the laws of the U.S. Constitution and along with the Bill of Rights. What part of the 2nd amendment is not understandable?

[Anti Federalist]

When becoming a state the state must abide by the laws of the U.S. Constitution and along with the Bill of Rights. What part of the 2nd amendment is not understandable?

Yes, according to the 14th Amendment, which was not ratified properly, and results in a loss of state sovereignty.

It says nothing BTW, in the constitution about following said constitution WRT to the states.

This is all it says that the states MUST do ( at least prior to incorporation).

Section. 10.


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[RCA]

Thats insane. The very purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to recognize "UNALIENABLE" rights and establish them as protected under the law of the land.I just watched Jack Hunters criticism of the overturn of Chicago's Gun Ban. What a complete idiot. Jack Hunter is a complete idiot now in my opinion.So basically Jack Hunter would also see the "ban on filming cops" as legitimate as well.Jack Hunter thinks that the 2nd amendment does not belong to the individual...unbelievable how intellectually stupid he is on this topic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4&feature=player_embedded

To be completely honest with you, it's these idiotic arguments within the liberty movement that pushed me towards anarcho-capitalism. That's where I am now in my life. BTW, I couldn't find the Ron Paul source, but he DID support the ban at the time.

[rawful]

Too bad a lot of these cops don't give two shits what the law states and will assault you anyway.

-"Put the camera down!"
-"I'm not breaking any laws, officer."
-"I said put it down!"
-"The Supreme Court just ruled that people are allowed to vid-..."
*tase* *tase* *tase* *tase*
-"Quit resisting! Stay still!
*tase* *tase* *tase* *tase*

[CaptainAmerica]

Too bad a lot of these cops don't give two shits what the law states and will assault you anyway.

-"Put the camera down!"
-"I'm not breaking any laws, officer."
-"I said put it down!"
-"The Supreme Court just ruled that people are allowed to vid-..."
*tase* *tase* *tase* *tase*
-"Quit resisting! Stay still!
*tase* *tase* *tase* *tase* True. Cool icon

[CaptainAmerica]

Incorporation and the 14th Amendment opens up another can of worms.

It's not as black and white as you think.

For the record, I was in favor of the court's overturn of the Chicago ban.

Call me a hypocrite if you must, I'll support any action at any level that protects individual rights.




The 2nd Circuit's decision is at odds with a decision handed down just last month by another set of appellate judges, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court ruled in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment does apply to states and localities, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as applying most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. That sort of conflict in the circuits often results in a Supreme Court hearing to clarify the law, although Court expert Lyle Denniston points out that the different timing of the two cases in the pipeline may not lend them to that sort of resolution. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_sotomayor_written_that_states_have_the.html


The 2nd amendment was defended by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was unclear whether or not the Bill of Rights 2nd amendment is also applicable to states. This is a pretty stupid place to live if the 2nd amendment doesn't get recognized as an individual right.On that note, I still don't buy the crap that Jack Hunter said about it.

[AGRP]

They know it's legal.

The problem is with their tyrannical actions of temporarily throwing people in cages simply because they don't want to be held accountable.

[pcosmar]

Incorporation and the 14th Amendment opens up another can of worms.

It's not as black and white as you think.

For the record, I was in favor of the court's overturn of the Chicago ban.

Call me a hypocrite if you must, I'll support any action at any level that protects individual rights.

The right to defend oneself is a HUMAN RIGHT.

But the issue is Moot. The Chicago gun ban was unconstitutional under Illinois State Constitution as well.

Most states affirm the right in State constitutions. The CITY was in violation of STATE LAW.

As to the filming of Cops. By their public actions and positions they have no expectation nor right of privacy.

[Anti Federalist]

The right to defend oneself is a HUMAN RIGHT.

But the issue is Moot. The Chicago gun ban was unconstitutional under Illinois State Constitution as well.

Most states affirm the right in State constitutions. The CITY was in violation of STATE LAW.

As to the filming of Cops. By their public actions and positions they have no expectation nor right of privacy.

That.

Many states, like NH and Maine, have even stronger language about the unequivocal RTKBA than the federal constitution.

[pcosmar]

That.

Many states, like NH and Maine, have even stronger language about the unequivocal RTKBA than the federal constitution.

Yup


Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
And yet,,, I am disarmed.
And every state has them overridden by Federal Laws and local ordinances. A multitude of conflicting and convoluted laws.

99% of which need to be stricken from the books.
With only basic laws against directly harming others, enforcement could be greatly reduced.
and there would be little need to monitor the non-existent army of enforcers.

[amyre]

Wow. It's like the adrenaline hits their brain and causes everything to go haywire. So bizarre.

[flightlesskiwi]

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_sotomayor_written_that_states_have_the.html


The 2nd amendment was defended by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was unclear whether or not the Bill of Rights 2nd amendment is also applicable to states. This is a pretty stupid place to live if the 2nd amendment doesn't get recognized as an individual right.On that note, I still don't buy the crap that Jack Hunter said about it.

you have no idea. illinois = socialist hellhole/central planner's dream state. yuppie pansy-ass mentality in the northern part of the state ruins it for the whole state-- especially for the more redneck southern third. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/FOID_%28firearms%29

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

But the issue is Moot. The Chicago gun ban was unconstitutional under Illinois State Constitution as well.

Most states affirm the right in State constitutions. The CITY was in violation of STATE LAW.

Yes! It seems that most or all libertarians who take a strict view that the Fed Bill of Rights applies only to the Fed Gov miss this crucial point.

Nearly all the states have bills of rights that acknowledge even more rights of the people vis-a-vis the state governments than the fed bill of rights acknowledges rights of the people vis-a-vis the fed gov.

If you listen to most of these libertarians who want to "let the states do what they want", you'd think that the whole idea was to have "50 laboratories" of majoritarian tyranny. No! Ron Paul should be pointing out that all the states have bills of rights that prohibit the drug war and the attendant police state enforcement systems rather than merely saying that it should be "a state issue."

[CaptainAmerica]

you have no idea. illinois = socialist hellhole/central planner's dream state. yuppie pansy-ass mentality in the northern part of the state ruins it for the whole state-- especially for the more redneck southern third. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/FOID_%28firearms%29 The irony is that the "state rights" advocates who say that Chicago Gun Ban was lawful under the "10th amendment" basically said that it is okay to nullify the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the state constitution and bill of rights and basically disregard an unalienable individual right as "state right" lol. State governments do not have the authority to remove the unalienable rights recognized in the bill of rights.In that extreme libertarian "states rights" view it would be absolute contradiction to having a state.

[LibForestPaul]

they must be completely stupid to have supported a gun ban as "state rights". State constitutions do not override the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Who says?

[jackers]

The US Constitution was designed to show the limited scope of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was clearly debated, explained, and understood at the ratifying convention, Federalist Papers, etc. I hate to break it to you, but you are completely wrong on this. It was only after the ratification (if you can call it that) of the 14th Amendment did did people start reversing the role of the Bill of Rights. It's just another one of those things that the public education system got wrong.

Do a search on Kevin Gutzman and incorporation doctrine.

[CaptainAmerica]

The US Constitution was designed to show the limited scope of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was clearly debated, explained, and understood at the ratifying convention, Federalist Papers, etc. I hate to break it to you, but you are completely wrong on this. It was only after the ratification (if you can call it that) of the 14th Amendment did did people start reversing the role of the Bill of Rights. It's just another one of those things that the public education system got wrong.

Do a search on Kevin Gutzman and incorporation doctrine.this is asinine .I really think people like yourself who cannot literally read the u.s. constitution and state constitution and bill of rights can actually comprehend it. There are some federal things which are good and this is one which is good. If what you were saying was hypothetically "true" it would completely nullify both state and federal constitution as well as statehood and being a nation and being recognized as individuals under those constitutions which are from that point nullified.

[libertybrewcity]

so does this mean people can record cops from now on? Are the state laws overturned?

[CaptainAmerica]

so does this mean people can record cops from now on? Are the state laws overturned? I believe so .Unless the U.S. Supreme court wants to try the case.

[jackers]

No need for throwing around insults. We are on the same team here.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman is an American historian, Constitutional scholar, and New York Times bestselling author of three books, Who Killed the Constitution? The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (co-authored with Tom Woods) and Virginia's American Revolution: from Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840. An associate professor of history at Western Connecticut State University, Gutzman holds a bachelor's degree, a master of public affairs degree, and a law degree from the University of Texas at Austin, as well as an MA and a PhD in American history from the University of Virginia. (Source: KevinGutzman.com)


Kevin R. C. Gutzman, on March 6th, 2010 at 8:57 am Said:
Mr. Grimes,
Yes, as originally understood, the Bill of Rights left it to each state to maintain its established religion. My own state of Connecticut, for example, kept the Puritan church that was the reason for Connecticut's very existence until 1819, and no one ever thought that this violated the Establishment Clause. Why? Because it didn't violate the Establishment Clause. The reason for the Establishment Clause was to keep Congress from doing anything "respecting an establishment of religion" -- either establishing a national church or disestablishing a state church -- as even John Marshall had to concede. (_Barron v. Baltimore_, 1833)

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says, in part, "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution... ."

The "its" refers to the Constitution's powers, and "the Government" refers to the Federal Government. In other words, the purpose of the federal Bill of Rights is to clarify the limits of Federal Government power. Its purpose is *not* to limit the state governments' powers IN ANY WAY.

Rep. James Madison proposed an amendment in the First Congress that would have given federal judges veto power over state laws related to speech, press, and religion. That was the only one of his amendment proposals that Congress did not adopt. Why? Because the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the Federal Government's powers, not to give it additional power vis-a-vis the states.

The Incorporation Doctrine is a bogus left-wing invention that has been used for almost uniformly pernicious purposes since it saw the light of day 7 decades ago. Under the Incorporation Doctrine (the idea that federal courts can use twisted readings of their favorite Bill of Rights provisions against the states), federal courts have made flag burning a right, banned capital punishment in general, banned capital punishment of child rapists, banned school prayer, excluded certain evidence against criminal defendants, banned Nativity Scenes from public places, et cetera. And now you want them to apply this same unconstitutional doctrine to a new area of law.

Gun ownership will never be unregulated. Retarded people, insane people, blind people, felons, children, and various others will not be allowed to possess weapons. People who are allowed to possess weapons will never be allowed to take them anywhere they want anytime they want. The issue is who decides what the regulations will be.

Since the founding of Virginia in 1607, state authorities have had control over such questions. But you want them to be decided by unelected, unaccountable federal judges -- the same ones who ban school prayer and Nativity Scenes and capital punishment of child rapists and so on. The model of government you are advocating is un-American.

But I predict that you are going to get your way. Federal Courts rarely refuse to take states' power for themselves.

[CaptainAmerica]

No need for throwing around insults. We are on the same team here.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman is an American historian, Constitutional scholar, and New York Times bestselling author of three books, Who Killed the Constitution? The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (co-authored with Tom Woods) and Virginia's American Revolution: from Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840. An associate professor of history at Western Connecticut State University, Gutzman holds a bachelor's degree, a master of public affairs degree, and a law degree from the University of Texas at Austin, as well as an MA and a PhD in American history from the University of Virginia. (Source: KevinGutzman.com) lol this is a joke right?

[AGRP]

To be completely honest with you, it's these idiotic arguments within the liberty movement that pushed me towards anarcho-capitalism. That's where I am now in my life. BTW, I couldn't find the Ron Paul source, but he DID support the ban at the time.

x2

My natural rights are not to be negotiated with / treated as something to be taken or given by anyone/group PERIOD.

[jackers]

lol this is a joke right?

What exactly makes this funny? Please explain with details, not emotions.

[CaptainAmerica]

What exactly makes this funny? Please explain with details, not emotions. Oh that the colonial Americans would declare independence and establish a government with the 1st amendment(most important).


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

are you illiterate?is that historian illiterate? He definitely appears to be a revisionist.

[jackers]

Oh that the colonial Americans would declare independence and establish a government with the 1st amendment(most important).


are you illiterate?is that historian illiterate? He definitely appears to be a revisionist.

CONGRESS (i.e. Federal Government) shall make no law....

[jackers]

Opposition to the Bill of Rights
The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.
However, Hamilton's opposition to a Bill of Rights was far from universal. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill, such as Thomas Jefferson, argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive; i.e., that these rights were examples of important rights that people had, but that people had other rights as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion. The matter was further clarified by the Ninth Amendment.

[CaptainAmerica]

Opposition to the Bill of Rights
The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.
However, Hamilton's opposition to a Bill of Rights was far from universal. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill, such as Thomas Jefferson, argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive; i.e., that these rights were examples of important rights that people had, but that people had other rights as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion. The matter was further clarified by the Ninth Amendment. Can I guess why Alexander Hamilton would write such lovely letters about the Bill of Rights. He basically wrote a politically motivated campaign pamphlet on why the "U.S. Constitution" should be ratified . IRONIC that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin and John Adams were absent and stuck in France during the ratification process.Alexander Hamilton was a complete tool bag. I would not take his interpretation of "unalienable" rights or the U.S. Constitution as the final thought . The Bill of Rights is a contractual agreement to recognize already existing natural unalienable rights of all individuals. If everyone interpreted the U.S. Constitution through Alexander Hamilton's eyes they would also believe that the "promote the general welfare" meant provide a national bank and fiat currency.

[jackers]

I am not disputing that Alexander Hamilton was probably the worst of the founders. However, you can see from that quote that the Bill of Rights were not a trump card to be played over states rights.

Who would you rather dictate your rights, your local state legislature or a gang of unelected robes?

[jackers]

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html


Bar to Federal Action

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.

This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:

In Barron v Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."

In Pervear v Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."

As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional.

[CaptainAmerica]

I am not disputing that Alexander Hamilton was probably the worst of the founders. However, you can see from that quote that the Bill of Rights were not a trump card to be played over states rights.

Who would you rather dictate your rights, your local state legislature or a gang of unelected robes?

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html)

From June to September, both houses of Congress debated Madison's list, along with the lists presented by the states. Rights were enumerated, removed, modified, tweaked. Eventually, both houses agreed on twelve articles of amendment and sent them to the states. Two years later, in 1791, the last ten of these original twelve were ratified by the states and they became a part of the Constitution. By custom, the amendments were added to the end of the original document, rather than inserted in the text, as Madison had envisioned. All ten of the original amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights, though only the first nine pertain to the people (Amendment 10 pertains to the states, though it mentions the people in parallel).

I believe you to be highly delusional when interpreting the 10th amendment and how it works.


The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
9th amendment.The states also ratified the Bill of Rights which means they became part of the U.S. Constitution. When Illinois banned guns , it used the 10th amendment to strip people of retained rights already listed and recognized in the U.S. Constitution. The state obviously overstepped the 9th amendment.

[jackers]

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html)


I believe you to be highly delusional when interpreting the 10th amendment and how it works.

9th amendment

What you posted doesn't in any way take away from my argument. How does that prove that the Bill of Rights doesn't only pertain to the federal government?

[CaptainAmerica]

What you posted doesn't in any way take away from my argument. How does that prove that the Bill of Rights doesn't only pertain to the federal government? Do you not understand english? Read the 9th amendment. thanks

[jackers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

[jackers]

Do I understand English? Are you missing everything I am posting or are you just too damn hard headed to comprehend it?

AGAIN:

In Barron v Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."

In Pervear v Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."

You are wrong. Get over it.

[CaptainAmerica]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
the 9th amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I guess if you want to go into a whole debate about how the 14th was illegally ratified we can do that as well

[jackers]

Haha, from the very link you gave in post #45. Again, this is your link:


Bar to Federal Action
The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.

This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:

In Barron v Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."

In Pervear v Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."

[jackers]

It doesn't matter how much you want it to be true, but until the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution in general) was only applied to the Federal government. I have provided you analysis by historians, Supreme Court decisions, and hyperlinks to multiple sources. You are not providing anything except a link in post #45 that actually supports my cause.

Give it up man, you are wrong on this issue.

[CaptainAmerica]

Haha, from the very link you gave in post #45. Again, this is your link: Completely ignorant. Do you really believe it was understood as a "bar on federal government". What kind of person would actually create a bar on federal government and not bar their direct government from the same exact power? I don't buy into the revisionism.

[Anti Federalist]

Captain, I have just one question for you:

What if Heller had gone the wrong way?

It was only one vote of one judge on one court on one case, that, had they voted the other way, would have effectively ended gun rights in the US.

The whole idea initially was that the BoR and the Constitution applied to the feds only, to prevent just such an incident from occurring, as has occurred before.

Basic fundamental rights should not ever be subject to that.

[CaptainAmerica]

It doesn't matter how much you want it to be true, but until the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution in general) was only applied to the Federal government. I have provided you analysis by historians, Supreme Court decisions, and hyperlinks to multiple sources. You are not providing anything except a link in post #45 that actually supports my cause.

Give it up man, you are wrong on this issue. Do you understand that states ratified the Bill of Rights and adopted them into their state constitutions? READ ENGLISH

[CaptainAmerica]

Captain, I have just one question for you:

What if Heller had gone the wrong way?

It was only one vote of one judge on one court on one case, that, had they voted the other way, would have effectively ended gun rights in the US.

The whole idea initially was that the BoR and the Constitution applied to the feds only, to prevent just such an incident from occurring, as has occurred before.

Basic fundamental rights should not ever be subject to that. the 9th amendment would apply

[jackers]

The same people who believe in States Rights! You are in essence saying that you prefer federal legislation over states rights. Congrats.

[CaptainAmerica]

The same people who believe in States Rights! You are in essence saying that you prefer federal legislation over states rights. Congrats. Nope. If a state overrides the u.s. constitution it has trampled the 9th amendment in the name of the 10th amendment. That contradiction is settled in court.Legislative branch does not interpret law ,Judicial branch interprets the law ,and obviously if the state tramples the 9th amendment, the judicial must set the state back in place to respecting the rights retained which cannot be construed in the name of "government" rights.

[jackers]

Do you understand that states ratified the Bill of Rights and adopted them into their state constitutions? READ ENGLISH

States ratified their own Bill of Rights. They didn't "copy and paste" from the US Constitution.

You are cracking me up with your insults. It is obvious to everyone that you are wrong, yet you keep insulting me. Like it will somehow make you right and me wrong. Let me guess, secession is unconstitutional because the north won the war, right? LOL

[CaptainAmerica]

States ratified their own Bill of Rights. They didn't "copy and paste" from the US Constitution.

You are cracking me up with your insults. It is obvious to everyone that you are wrong, yet you keep insulting me. Like it will somehow make you right and me wrong. Let me guess, secession is unconstitutional because the north won the war, right? LOL You called it "federal legislation". Hello! Do you understand that the judicial branch interprets the law?

[jackers]

You called it "federal legislation". Hello! Do you understand that the judicial branch interprets the law?

You really need to take a history course (not from public schools) or read some damn books. There is nothing else I can really say at this point. I provided you with the information, if you don't want to accept it then there is no reason to keep going in circles. Again, I have provided historians inputs, supreme court rulings, and plenty of links.

You provided me a link that actually backs up my claim. Unless you can provide ANYTHING that points to incorporation prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment then we can continue this debate. I'm going to sleep, I'll check back tomorrow morning. That should give you plenty of time to find at least something supporting your misguided claim.

Goodnight, Sir.

[jackers]

I'll leave you with this:

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights has been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well.

[CaptainAmerica]

I'll leave you with this: yup, I can see how it limited Chicago from owning guns.:rolleyes:

[jackers]

So you didn't find a single thing to support your argument then?

[Keith and stuff]

N.H. Judge Upholds Right to Record Police in Public
Written by Jack Kenny
Thursday, 03 November 2011
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/9635-nh-judge-upholds-right-to-record-police-in-public

I NH judge cited Glik in a ruling. As you may have guessed, this is Free State Project participant connected :)

Here are the first couple paragraphs.


A District Court judge in Goffstown, New Hampshire has dismissed a criminal charge against a Weare man for recording his conversation with a police officer during a traffic stop. Judge Edward Tenney followed a recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Boston in Glik v. Cunniffe in ruling that William Alleman was within his constitutional rights when making an audio recording of Weare Police Officer Brandon Montplaisir during the traffic stop on July 10, 2010.

The recording was made via cellphone when Alleman called Porcupine 911, an answering service for libertarian activists, as the officer approached Alleman's car. Though the charge was not filed until the following February, Alleman's attorney, Seth Hipple, told The New American on Thursday that the officer was aware at the time he was being recorded and told Alleman that it was illegal to record him without his permission. Alleman insisted he had a right to do so, and Judge Tenney agreed, citing the First Circuit's ruling in the Glik case.


This paragraph is about the President of the FSP.


The Alleman case was one of three in the past 18 months in which Weare police have charged citizens with unlawfully recording police officers in public. Charges were dropped against the other two, but one of them, who is also a Hipple client, is now suing the town and its police department over her arrest. The plaintiff is seeking compensation for time spent in jail following the arrest, time lost in court, lawyer fees, and the emotional stress of facing a possible seven-year prison sentence, Hipple said. He said he did not yet know whether Alleman will file a civil suit over his arrest. But the attorney hopes the dismissal of the criminal charge, “along with various laws suits that have been filed” will persuade Weare Police to “respect people's First Amendment rights to document what their government is doing.”

[Keith and stuff]

This was the top story in the Union Leader today (the NH statewide paper.)

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4503/37512510150521094652388.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/440/37512510150521094652388.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[Keith and stuff]

More good news. Not only was the the top story in the NH statewide paper but 3 editorials have come out in favor of this.

Right to record: It's yours, people
EDITORIAL
Published Nov 5, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Nov 3, 2011)
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111105/OPINION01/711049981


Citing an August First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling involving a similar case, Goffstown District Judge Edward Tenney ruled this week that Alleman had a First Amendment right to record a public official engaged in official public duties. And now it's official: citizens don't have to get permission to record the police. All New Hampshire police departments should incorporate this ruling into their training right away. Let's not have any more of this nonsense of charging citizens for trying to hold public servants accountable.

If you look at the comments section, you see comment after comment thanking the Free Staters for bring up this issue in NH and helping the citizens of NH.



Right to know lives: Good news for NH public
EDITORIAL
Published Nov 6, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Nov 5, 2011)
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111106/OPINION01/711069939


In one, a judge let police know that this is not a police state.


No offense to the Weare police, but that is scary, Orwellian stuff. District Judge Edward Tenney ruled that the citizen had a First Amendment right to record a public official engaged in public duties. As a Union Leader editorial on Friday noted, “All police departments should incorporate this ruling into their training right away. Let’s not have any more of this nonsense of charging citizens for trying to hold public servants accountable.”

[jmdrake]

The "Chicago Gun Ban" was supported by many forum members when it was overturned by the Supreme Court. Their basis was States' Rights.


they must be completely stupid to have supported a gun ban as "state rights". State constitutions do not override the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Exactly. Not only was the issue clearly settled by the Constitution, but also by Natural Law which is what the Constitution is based on. Unfortunately, Ron Paul himself also supported the Chicago Gun Ban and that, in my opinion, was the reason a large chunk of his supporters did as well. Even Ron Paul is wrong every once in a while, and there are "Ron Paul sheep" believe it or not. BTW, Andrew Napolitano DID NOT support the Chicago Gun Ban. He's my favorite minarchist. :-)

Some forum members are still trying to refight the U.S. civil war and are upset about almost everything that flowed out of it including the 14th amendment and a incorporation doctrine. They are ignorant of or ignore article 4 section 4 of the constitution which predates the bill of rights.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

They also ignore the actual text of the 2nd amendment which, unlike the first, makes no reference to congress but instead says the right to bear arms belong to the people. Also the militia clause is important. The federal government had the power to

And lastly they ignore militia clause in article 1 of the constitution.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Since the 2nd amendment says the people being armed is required for a militia, and article 1 gives the federal government the authority to arm the militia, the states do not have the right to disarm the people because that would undermine the federal authority to arm the militia.

Lastly these forum members ignore the 9th amendment while focusing on the 10th.

See: http://freedomkeys.com/9thand10th.htm

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How some people read the 9th and 10th amendment as only affirming "states rights" as opposed to affirming states rights and individual rights is beyond me.

[jmdrake]

I'll leave you with this:

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights has been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well.


The supreme court got a lot of stuff wrong back then, for example its holding that a central bank was constitutional based on the "necessary and proper clause". But regardless the 2nd amendment didn't specifically reference the federal government like the 1st did so it didn't need to be incorporated.

[jmdrake]

Captain, I have just one question for you:

What if Heller had gone the wrong way?

It was only one vote of one judge on one court on one case, that, had they voted the other way, would have effectively ended gun rights in the US.

The whole idea initially was that the BoR and the Constitution applied to the feds only, to prevent just such an incident from occurring, as has occurred before.

Basic fundamental rights should not ever be subject to that.

That's just it. If one of the judges had taken the "states rights" argument some here support Heller would have gone the wrong way. The Captain is right. People need to re-familiarize themselves with the 9th amendment and don't just look at part of the 10th amendment as if that was everything.

[jmdrake]

http://gizmodo.com/5835723/federal-court-says-you-can-record-the-cops


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI38MnpAlW4&feature=player_embedded

I'm glad it came down like this. I said earlier when this guys charges got reinstated it could be a good thing because it could be a precedent setting case. This nation isn't quite dead yet.