Will you still support Justin as an Independent?

[Warlord]

Will you send him money and support? Vote now and post in here what your thinking...

[Anti Globalist]

I wish him the best of luck but he needs to overcome his TDS.

[nikcers]

If you look at 1984 and brave New world as a template for how you want the country to be than by all means don't support Trump. Both of those authors invisioned an America that is post capitalism. I am going to support whatever candidate that rejects socialism and has a chance at winning, right now that happens to be Trump. I didn't put myself in this corner but I will fight to bone to keep the socialists from taking over.

[juleswin]

I supported him in the past and I still get letters from his office for funds. I really like him and the votes he supported and also the way he tried to explain his rationale for each vote. This was a kind of transparency unheard of in Washington. But this move now makes me question his judgement and he now needs to come up with one heck of an explanation before I get to the level of financially supporting him.

I will still vote for him if I was in his district cos I can bet that a 99% certainty that he would be better than whoever his opponent is

[EBounding]

The criticism I'm seeing on here is really bizarre. He's fed up with the system where everything is controlled by the President and the two congressional leaders. If you read his Op-Ed, he doesn't mention impeachment or even Trump. I don't know what his thoughts are, but my impression is that he can help buck the system by getting re-elected as an independent. It doesn't sound like he cares to be re-elected if he has to do it by continuing to play this "game".

[Origanalist]

The criticism I'm seeing on here is really bizarre. He's fed up with the system where everything is controlled by the President and the two congressional leaders. If you read his Op-Ed, he doesn't mention impeachment or even Trump. I don't know what his thoughts are, but my impression is that he can help buck the system by getting re-elected as an independent. It doesn't sound like he cares to be re-elected if he has to do it by continuing to play this "game".

Unlike most of the whores in office he doesn't need to be elected or even be part of the government-corporate revolving door.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes. I would also support him if he bought the side of a mountain in Wyoming.

[nobody's_hero]

I think the poll unintentionally pigeonholes people. Viable seats when funds are limited are typically where my money goes. Votes are cheap so I wouldn't have a problem with voting for him.

From the looks of things if he runs in 2020 he'll be the best candidate. I doubt Rand is gonna challenge Trump and will continue using his foothold and platform in the Senate to advance issues as best as possible. I think, however, it will be very telling if Amash does run as an independent and snatches more votes from the GOP than the democrats. I know people here like to think that the democrats are gonna break rank and come out to support him, but in my experience the only real debate about limited government, at least on the on the voter-level (meaning: not among the leadership), happens on the right, especially these days. Most of your average democrat voters just aren't at the point of frustration that they'll leave and go 3rd party/indy. They might stop supporting democrats but that doesn't mean you just add water and they become champions for smaller government. More than likely they'll end up wandering off to whatever forgotten universe the paleoconservatives went to die. (I really thought the left's walk-away movement was gonna be big but ultimately it was kind of disappointing. That's why I argue that pandering to the left is a bit dumb. Risk vs. gain just doesn't justify it.)

[RonZeplin]

Justin is just too dang good to be a REAL Republican or Democrat, did the right thing in leaving.

https://i1.wp.com/fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/9a44144f-86ef-4974-827e-7d9d66a67f7c_1.9045c4257c4c22c890d74749e95f6775.jp eg?resize=560%2C362&ssl=1

[Superfluous Man]

Support in what? Running for reelection for his current seat?

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_8M8EI3M1E

[Snowball]

Of course.

I'm not a Neo Con OR a Zio Con.

:D

[Swordsmyth]

Nope, he can't win as an independent, especially after the impeachment stunt.
I don't have much money but I might have given him some if he stayed a Republican.

Whether you are talking about his House seat or the presidency all he will do now is help the communists.

[Ender]

If you look at 1984 and brave New world as a template for how you want the country to be than by all means don't support Trump. Both of those authors invisioned an America that is post capitalism. I am going to support whatever candidate that rejects socialism and has a chance at winning, right now that happens to be Trump. I didn't put myself in this corner but I will fight to bone to keep the socialists from taking over.

Dude- we are already post capitalism. Real capitalism is free trade, freedom to operate a business as you would wish, and real money.

All the rabble about socialism/communists etc is a ruse to keep us all fighting with each other while the last vestige of liberty blows away. Everyone is so indoctrinated & so in the Matrix that they fight to keep their prison walls secure, w/o a clue where they really are.

[Stratovarious]

Trump is an Israel bootlicking, ass sucker, but I don't support nor trust anyone like
asshat who sought headlines and recognition , jumping on the impeach Trump bandwagon,
entertained impeachment 'because' , fk Ashole.

[nikcers]

Dude- we are already post capitalism. Real capitalism is free trade, freedom to operate a business as you would wish, and real money.

All the rabble about socialism/communists etc is a ruse to keep us all fighting with each other while the last vestige of liberty blows away. Everyone is so indoctrinated & so in the Matrix that they fight to keep their prison walls secure, w/o a clue where they really are.

Why do people invest their money here if there is no capitalism?

[euphemia]

I’m sure the whole story isn’t out yet. I don’t give money to politicians. They steal it from me, but there you go. I just don’t see that all the bridge burning is going to lead to anything good. He has really shot himself in the foot.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

He has completely destroyed and wasted any cachet he had built throughout his political career. Even if he wins -- which is unlikely at this point-- his ability to get anything done has been, at best, severely limited.

[UWDude]

He has completely destroyed and wasted any cachet he had built throughout his political career. Even if he wins -- which is unlikely at this point-- his ability to get anything done has been, at best, severely limited.

He has no chance unless he goes pro-choice.
The best he can do is stink it up for the R, so a D can win.
It doesn't matter any more. He has no chance, and whoever wins is going to suck.

[eleganz]

I supported him in the past and I still get letters from his office for funds. I really like him and the votes he supported and also the way he tried to explain his rationale for each vote. This was a kind of transparency unheard of in Washington. But this move now makes me question his judgement and he now needs to come up with one heck of an explanation before I get to the level of financially supporting him.

I will still vote for him if I was in his district cos I can bet that a 99% certainty that he would be better than whoever his opponent is

This is essentially my same thoughts.

If I could vote for him I Would but until he shows he actually wants to win and has a realistic plan of it, financial support is not likely.

He could be working with trump and getting things done like rand is, instead he made an enemy of the president. And the democrats won't love him, so where is the upside to anything he's been doing lately?

[TomtheTinker]

He has completely destroyed and wasted any cachet he had built throughout his political career. Even if he wins -- which is unlikely at this point-- his ability to get anything done has been, at best, severely limited.

Ron never got anything done, yet here we are.

[oyarde]

Support by voting for him if I lived there ? Yes . Giving money ? probably not as anything other than GOP .

[bubbleboy]

He should run as a Democrat.

[kahless]

He should run as a Democrat.

The left and the NeverTrumpers want him to run as a Libertarian candidate for President. A miscalculation if they think it will hurt Trump. What it would do is split the NeverTrump vote in both parties and take more votes away from Democrats since too many Democrats are fed up with how far left the party has gone. It is more likely they will vote for Trump than Amash.

Justin Amash is the anti-Ron Paul
He’s teaching libertarians how to lose
https://spectator.us/justin-amash-anti-ron-paul/

What Ron Paul did was to counteract neoconservatism in the Republican party with libertarianism and populism. Populism proved to be more potent, but libertarianism itself contributed important elements to populism, including an articulate anti-interventionist foreign policy and a sense of class warfare as about power, not just wealth. Amash was never comfortable with populism, but libertarianism without it has no market at all. The Washington Post and the NeverTrump neocons share Amash’s animosity toward Trump and the populist right, but they share even fewer of his professed principles than Trump does. Ron Paul won despite losing; Amash teaches libertarians simply how to lose by losing.

[devil21]

Didn't vote but poll results are pretty predictable.

[chudrockz]

I'll be MORE likely to support him as an Independent. I have grown so disgusted with politics since Trump v Hilary that I didn't even vote last time. First time in my life skipping an election.

To the extent the GOP is being remade in Trump's image, I really can't see ever supporting the party again.

[chudrockz]

Also, as far as whether his political career is over or not, one never knows. He could be the libertarian Bernie Sanders.

[PursuePeace]

This is essentially my same thoughts.

If I could vote for him I Would but until he shows he actually wants to win and has a realistic plan of it, financial support is not likely.

He could be working with trump and getting things done like rand is, instead he made an enemy of the president. And the democrats won't love him, so where is the upside to anything he's been doing lately?

Yeah, this is kind of my thinking at the moment, as well.

[Superfluous Man]

I'll be MORE likely to support him as an Independent. I have grown so disgusted with politics since Trump v Hilary that I didn't even vote last time. First time in my life skipping an election.

To the extent the GOP is being remade in Trump's image, I really can't see ever supporting the party again.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chudrockz again."

[nikcers]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chudrockz again."

Says the Mike Pence supporter.

[chudrockz]

Haha thank you. I was a tad worried coming back here. Most of my political discourse (such as it is) over the past couple of years has been on the comments section of the Yahoo news app. If you've not had the pleasure I'd avoid reading it. Most of the time the commentary is so ignorant it's literally impossible to discern what the opinion even is, let alone whether you agree with it or not!

I think I lose an IQ point for every comment I read there. God help us.

[Ender]

I'll be MORE likely to support him as an Independent. I have grown so disgusted with politics since Trump v Hilary that I didn't even vote last time. First time in my life skipping an election.

To the extent the GOP is being remade in Trump's image, I really can't see ever supporting the party again.

+rep

And I've never supported either party- 2nd verse same as the first.

[dannno]

I'll be MORE likely to support him as an Independent. I have grown so disgusted with politics since Trump v Hilary that I didn't even vote last time. First time in my life skipping an election.

Ironically, it was the first election in decades that actually mattered.

[kahless]

I'll be MORE likely to support him as an Independent. I have grown so disgusted with politics since Trump v Hilary that I didn't even vote last time. First time in my life skipping an election.

To the extent the GOP is being remade in Trump's image, I really can't see ever supporting the party again.

Amash electorally could not win and if he did his open border immigration policies will ensure he would be the final nail in the coffin for a limited government party candidate to get elected in the future.


Also, as far as whether his political career is over or not, one never knows. He could be the libertarian Bernie Sanders.

That would pull most votes away from the Democrats and a small minority of NeverTrumpers in the Republican party. It would ensure a Trump Presidency so I suppose it really does not matter what Amash does.

[pcosmar]

I wish him the best of luck but he needs to overcome his TDS.

Trump is Deranged..

Amash is just one that sees it.

[pcosmar]

Ironically, it was the first election in decades that actually mattered.

choice between Hillary (Known Evil) and a Lifetime democrat and Hillary supporter who joked about running as a Republican,,, and then bought the Party Nomination.

what part of the election mattered?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t99KH0TR-J4

[kahless]

Trump is Deranged..

Amash is just one that sees it.

Even if Amash believes that he made an obvious strategic mistake that cost him his political career. What possible good did that do? Answer, none and his seat could potentially end up in the wrong hands.

[dannno]

choice between Hillary (Known Evil) and a Lifetime democrat and Hillary supporter who joked about running as a Republican,,, and then bought the Party Nomination.

what part of the election mattered?

Well, I like the fact that we have a President who stands up against the military industrial complex for a change.

Let's say Ron Paul is a 10 on foreign policy. Trump is still an 8. He still wants to bring our troops home, he thinks all the wars we are in were a waste of money. The difference is that Ron Paul wants to pull the troops out immediately whereas Trump wants to do it more strategically, and defeat ISIS first - we created ISIS, so it isn't totally unfair to ask us to get rid of that annoyance over there.

We had 16,000 troops in Afghanistan when Trump took office, now we are down to 9,000 and Trump is not done yet. He has also decreased our military presence in Syria. He has more work to do to bring more troops home, and that is all in his plans.

Hillary is a 1 or a 2 on foreign policy. The military industrial complex is a 1 on foreign policy on a scale of 10. I'll take an 8 over a 1 or 2 any day of the week.

Then we got a really good tax break, we got significant decreases in regulations and bureaucracy. With Hillary we would have seen tax increases and more government employees and more bureaucracy.

Then we have the fact that every single day, Trump eats the mainstream media for lunch - the propaganda arm is really the biggest enemy of the people, and Trump is helping destroy them.

If your idea of what is "better" than Hillary is Ron Paul, and nothing but Ron Paul, then you have a very skewed view on what preferences are and how life works.

Do I think Mitt Romney would be better than Hillary? No. How about McCain? Fuck no. John Kerry? Bush? Fuck to the no.. I know what you are getting at with the whole "they are all the same" thing.. and 99% of politicians are the same.

Trump is a million times better than Hillary, though. Sorry you can't see that.

[nikcers]

Well, I like the fact that we have a President who stands up against the military industrial complex for a change.

Let's say Ron Paul is a 10 on foreign policy. Trump is still an 8. He still wants to bring our troops home, he thinks all the wars we are in were a waste of money. The difference is that Ron Paul wants to pull the troops out immediately whereas Trump wants to do it more strategically, and defeat ISIS first - we created ISIS, so it isn't totally unfair to ask us to get rid of that annoyance over there.

We had 16,000 troops in Afghanistan when Trump took office, now we are down to 9,000 and Trump is not done yet.

Hillary is a 1 or a 2 on foreign policy. The military industrial complex is a 1 on foreign policy on a scale of 10. I'll take an 8 over a 1 or 2 any day of the week.

Then we got a really good tax break, we got significant decreases in regulations and bureaucracy. With Hillary we would have seen tax increases and more government employees and more bureaucracy.

If your idea of what is "better" than Hillary is Ron Paul, and nothing but Ron Paul, then you have a very skewed view on what preferences are and how life works.

Gettingg rid of ISIS was supposed to be a gesture of good faith, since ISIS was designed and created to go after our enemies in the middle east and fuel arms races that make a lot of profits.

[pcosmar]

Even if Amash believes that he made an obvious strategic mistake that cost him his political career. What possible good did that do? Answer, none and his seat could potentially end up in the wrong hands.

His Seat is in Michigan.

California learned it from the Michigan Socialists.

[RonZeplin]

Trump vs Hilary was the least important election in history, but Trump vs Biden might be even less important.

Stay tuned for further developments.

[UWDude]

Well, I like the fact that we have a President who stands up against the military industrial complex for a change.

Let's say Ron Paul is a 10 on foreign policy. Trump is still an 8. He still wants to bring our troops home, he thinks all the wars we are in were a waste of money. The difference is that Ron Paul wants to pull the troops out immediately whereas Trump wants to do it more strategically, and defeat ISIS first - we created ISIS, so it isn't totally unfair to ask us to get rid of that annoyance over there.

We had 16,000 troops in Afghanistan when Trump took office, now we are down to 9,000 and Trump is not done yet. He has also decreased our military presence in Syria. He has more work to do to bring more troops home, and that is all in his plans.

Hillary is a 1 or a 2 on foreign policy. The military industrial complex is a 1 on foreign policy on a scale of 10. I'll take an 8 over a 1 or 2 any day of the week.

Then we got a really good tax break, we got significant decreases in regulations and bureaucracy. With Hillary we would have seen tax increases and more government employees and more bureaucracy.

Then we have the fact that every single day, Trump eats the mainstream media for lunch - the propaganda arm is really the biggest enemy of the people, and Trump is helping destroy them.

If your idea of what is "better" than Hillary is Ron Paul, and nothing but Ron Paul, then you have a very skewed view on what preferences are and how life works.

Do I think Mitt Romney would be better than Hillary? No. How about McCain? $#@! no. John Kerry? Bush? $#@! to the no.. I know what you are getting at with the whole "they are all the same" thing.. and 99% of politicians are the same.

Trump is a million times better than Hillary, though. Sorry you can't see that.

I'd give Trump a 4 on foreign policy. Maybe even 3.

[Swordsmyth]

I'd give Trump a 4 on foreign policy. Maybe even 3.
I'd say 5.

[UWDude]

I'd say 5.

That's because you did not see Venezuela in the same light I do.
I give him 1 for no new wars, and 1 for saying there is a military industrial complex, and 1 for saying he did not want to kill Iranian people.
It's been a while since a president mentioned the MIC. And I don't think I have ever heard a president mention the toll of war dead on the other side. It's always about "American lives".

[Swordsmyth]

That's because you did not see Venezuela in the same light I do.
I give him 1 for no new wars, and 1 for saying there is a military industrial complex, and 1 for saying he did not want to kill Iranian people.
It's been a while since a president mentioned the MIC. And I don't think I have ever heard a president mention the toll of war dead on the other side. It's always about "American lives".
It's because I am counting his Syrian withdrawal, his negotiations to withdraw from Afghanistan and and his fight back in the trade wars among many other things you aren't.

[Warlord]

62% support for Amash!

[Anti Globalist]

Well, I like the fact that we have a President who stands up against the military industrial complex for a change.

Let's say Ron Paul is a 10 on foreign policy. Trump is still an 8. He still wants to bring our troops home, he thinks all the wars we are in were a waste of money. The difference is that Ron Paul wants to pull the troops out immediately whereas Trump wants to do it more strategically, and defeat ISIS first - we created ISIS, so it isn't totally unfair to ask us to get rid of that annoyance over there.

We had 16,000 troops in Afghanistan when Trump took office, now we are down to 9,000 and Trump is not done yet. He has also decreased our military presence in Syria. He has more work to do to bring more troops home, and that is all in his plans.

Hillary is a 1 or a 2 on foreign policy. The military industrial complex is a 1 on foreign policy on a scale of 10. I'll take an 8 over a 1 or 2 any day of the week.

Then we got a really good tax break, we got significant decreases in regulations and bureaucracy. With Hillary we would have seen tax increases and more government employees and more bureaucracy.

Then we have the fact that every single day, Trump eats the mainstream media for lunch - the propaganda arm is really the biggest enemy of the people, and Trump is helping destroy them.

If your idea of what is "better" than Hillary is Ron Paul, and nothing but Ron Paul, then you have a very skewed view on what preferences are and how life works.

Do I think Mitt Romney would be better than Hillary? No. How about McCain? $#@! no. John Kerry? Bush? $#@! to the no.. I know what you are getting at with the whole "they are all the same" thing.. and 99% of politicians are the same.

Trump is a million times better than Hillary, though. Sorry you can't see that.
So basically when its all said and done, Trump will have a 10 in foreign policy by the time his presidency is done.

[kahless]

62% support for Amash!

62% do not understand that despite Amash's record on everything else, his immigration policies contribute to a future of a demographic that will make it impossible to elect limited government candidates. As smart as he is I suspect he understands this and if that is the case he is a sham to coral the ignorant to their own demise.

What also does it say about those that put the interests of foreign citizens over our own?

[TheCount]

62% do not understand that despite Amash's record on everything else, his immigration policies contribute to a future of a demographic that will make it impossible to elect limited government candidates.


Yes, yes, we know your priorities.

[kahless]

Yes, yes, we know your priorities.

As well as your priority to grow government and a future of Democratic party victories.

[kahless]

62% do not understand that despite Amash's record on everything else, his immigration policies contribute to a future of a demographic that will make it impossible to elect limited government candidates. As smart as he is I suspect he understands this and if that is the case he is a sham to coral the ignorant to their own demise.

What also does it say about those that put the interests of foreign citizens over our own?

Correction, not "everything" else. There are other policies where Amash let libertarians down. For example:

Making concealed-carry firearm permits valid across state lines.
Amash Voted "No".
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll663.xml

H.J.Res.2 - Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Amash - Voted "No"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/2
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll138.xml

Overturning President Trump’s emergency declaration for border wall funding (245-182)
Feb. 26, 2019
Amash - Voted Yes
H.J.Res.46 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll094.xml

Overriding President Trump’s veto of a bill that overturned his emergency declaration for border wall funding (248-181)
March 26
Amash - Voted Yes
H.J.Res.46 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll127.xml

Constitutional balanced budget amendment (233-184)
April 12, 2018
Amash - Voted No
H.J.Res.2 - Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/2
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll138.xml

Penalizing states and localities that have “sanctuary” laws on immigration (228-195)
June 29, 2017
Amash - Voted No

H.R.3003 - No Sanctuary for Criminals Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3003
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll342.xml

Budget resolution to repeal the Affordable Care Act (227-198)
Jan. 13, 2017
Amash - Voted No
S.Con.Res.3 - A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2018 through 2026.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/3
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll058.xml

Repeal of an FCC rule barring internet providers from sharing data on customers’ activities (215-205)
March 28, 2017
Amash - Voted No
S.J.Res.34 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services".
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

[Anti Federalist]

Budget resolution to repeal the Affordable Care Act (227-198)
Jan. 13, 2017
Amash - Voted No
S.Con.Res.3 - A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2018 through 2026.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...t-resolution/3
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll058.xml

That would be enough for me to dismiss him...when the chance to repeal one of the worst acts ever passed, he folded.

Unless this is some congressional bullshit where no means yes

[PAF]

Correction, not "everything" else. There are other policies where Amash let libertarians down. For example:

Making concealed-carry firearm permits valid across state lines.
Amash Voted "No".
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll663.xml

H.J.Res.2 - Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Amash - Voted "No"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/2
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll138.xml


H.J.Res.46 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.Overturning President Trump’s emergency declaration for border wall funding (245-182)
Feb. 26, 2019
Amash - Voted Yes
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll094.xml

Overriding President Trump’s veto of a bill that overturned his emergency declaration for border wall funding (248-181)
March 26
Amash - Voted Yes
H.J.Res.46 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/46
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll127.xml

Constitutional balanced budget amendment (233-184)
April 12, 2018
Amash - Voted No
H.J.Res.2 - Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/2
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll138.xml

Penalizing states and localities that have “sanctuary” laws on immigration (228-195)
June 29, 2017
Amash - Voted No

H.R.3003 - No Sanctuary for Criminals Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3003
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll342.xml

Budget resolution to repeal the Affordable Care Act (227-198)
Jan. 13, 2017
Amash - Voted No
S.Con.Res.3 - A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2018 through 2026.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/3
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll058.xml

Repeal of an FCC rule barring internet providers from sharing data on customers’ activities (215-205)
March 28, 2017
Amash - Voted No
S.J.Res.34 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services".
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml


Bringing Anti Federalist into the loop.


I will just touch on a few of these for starters:


1.)

Making concealed-carry firearm permits valid across state lines.

The 2nd Amendment is the only permit you need. I am not aware of the 2nd Amendment talking about any other permits. Unless people feel that "bills" should supersede the Bill of Rights.


2.)

H.J.Res.2 - Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Amash - Voted "No"



Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment

Amendments supersede all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution. For example, the 13th Amendment superseded provisions within Article I, Section 2, clause 3 & Article IV, Section 2, clause 3 which were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.

So a BBA, which would authorize Congress to spend money on whatever they or the President decide to put into the budget, would supersede the list of enumerated powers in our Constitution.

.
.
.
Conclusion

A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told. Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.


Continue:

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/balanced-budget-amendment/



3.)

Overturning President Trump’s emergency declaration for border wall funding (245-182)
Feb. 26, 2019
Amash - Voted Yes


Page 188
8 (h) REFUGEE ASSISTANCE IN NORTH AFRICA.-Not
9 later than 45 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary
10 of State, after consultation with the United Nations
11 High Commissioner for Refugees and the Executive Direc-
12 tor of the World Food Programme, shall submit a report
13 to the Committees on Appropriations describing steps
14 taken to strengthen monitoring of the delivery of humani-
15 tarian assistance provided for refugees in North Africa,
16 including any steps taken to ensure that all vulnerable ref-
17 ugees are receiving such assistance.

Page 255
12 (k) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.-Of the funds appro-
13 priated by this Act under the heading "Economic Support
14 Fund", $25,000,000 shall be transferred to, and merged
15 with, funds appropriated under the heading "International
16 Organizations and Programs", of which $23,000,000 shall
17 be for a contribution to support the United Nations resi-
18 dent coordinator system and $2,000,000 shall be for a
19 contribution to the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund.

Page 314
6 UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND
7 SEC. 7072. (a) CONTRIBUTION.-Of the funds made
8 available under the heading "International Organizations
9 and Programs" in this Act for fiscal year 2019,
10 $32,500,000 shall be made available for the United Na-
11 tions Population Fund (UNFP A).
12 (b) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.-Funds appropriated
13 by this Act for UNFPA, that are not made available for
14 UNFP A because of the operation of any provision of law,
15 shall be transferred to the "Global Health Programs" ac-
16 count and shall be made available for family planning, ma-
17 ternal, and reproductive health activities, subject to the
18 regular notification procedures of the Committees on Ap-
19 propriations.

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek...T-116hrpt9.pdf

[Anti Federalist]

Bringing Anti Federalist into the loop.


I will just touch on a few of these for starters:


1.)

Making concealed-carry firearm permits valid across state lines.

The 2nd Amendment is the only permit you need. I am not aware of the 2nd Amendment talking about any other permits. Unless people feel that "bills" should supersede the Bill of Rights

Yes, I am aware of the issues with federally mandated permits, especially in CCC states like NH.

I have no issue with his no vote on this. As nice as it would be to stick it states like NJ and NY, the downsides would be worth it.

I am genuinely surprised at his no vote on defunding ACA.

[UWDude]

Yes, I am aware of the issues with federally mandated permits, especially in CCC states like NH.

I have no issue with his no vote on this. As nice as it would be to stick it states like NJ and NY, the downsides would be worth it.

I am genuinely surprised at his no vote on defunding ACA.

To be fair, he did vote FOR military tranny surgeries and hormone therapy.

[PAF]

Yes, I am aware of the issues with federally mandated permits, especially in CCC states like NH.

I have no issue with his no vote on this. As nice as it would be to stick it states like NJ and NY, the downsides would be worth it.

I am genuinely surprised at his no vote on defunding ACA.

I remember reading it at the time and will have to reread again it to make certain so that I am not in error. But I recall it was during that time when republicans were talking about "repeal and replace", which did nothing under the covers, and was pathetic.


Bills these days are hundreds, thousands of pages which makes interpreting the "legal jargon" a challenge. One of the things that I advocate are returning the bills to one single issue so that we know exactly what is in them.

[PAF]

Double post.

[susano]

Even if Amash believes that he made an obvious strategic mistake that cost him his political career. What possible good did that do? Answer, none and his seat could potentially end up in the wrong hands.

THIS and as someone who lives in his district I'm really disappointed to lose someone with such a (most of the time) good voting record. I've got to get cracking and get familiar with those running in the primary and hope that one, at least, is a true conservative. Some are just never Trumpers. Amash's open borders stance and siding with serial lairs like Andrew Weissman is unforgivable, for me. I would have to hold my nose to vote for him, again, and it would have been purely to stop a Democrap from getting in there. Sad ending.

[susano]

I remember reading it at the time and will have to reread again it to make certain so that I am not in error. But I recall it was during that time when republicans were talking about "repeal and replace", which did nothing under the covers, and was pathetic.


Bills these days are hundreds, thousands of pages which makes interpreting the "legal jargon" a challenge. One of the things that I advocate are returning the bills to one single issue so that we know exactly what is in them.


Years ago, I wrote an email to Justin, Rand and someone else (can't recall now, asking someone to please introduce a "truth in legislation act", requiring legislation to be wholly written by the legislator introducing the bill; limiting the scope to one issue; limiting number of pages to ten; requiring common language and no legalese and a few other things I can't remember. Never heard back from anyone.

[kahless]

1.)

Making concealed-carry firearm permits valid across state lines.

The 2nd Amendment is the only permit you need. I am not aware of the 2nd Amendment talking about any other permits. Unless people feel that "bills" should supersede the Bill of Rights.

I believe in states rights in an ideal world but this is a war where the states are locking people up for crossing state lines with a firearm. This is less than an ideal solution but what better way to fight this war and stop the states from trampling on 2nd amendment rights? Do we wait years for the Supreme Court while people sit in jail while our countrymen are disarmed?

The left has thrown out the rule book while we are playing by the rule book. Sure fire way to lose the country to them.

[PAF]

I believe in states rights in an ideal world but this is a war where the states are locking people up for crossing state lines with a firearm. This is less than an ideal solution but what better way to fight this war and stop the states from trampling on 2nd amendment rights? Do we wait years for the Supreme Court while people sit in jail while our countrymen are disarmed?

The left has thrown out the rule book while we are playing by the rule book. Sure fire way to lose the country to them.

Meantime, during this war, you advocate passing illegal bills to throw out the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 2nd Amendment.

Thought balloon: "This is less than an ideal solution but what better way... " Lessers of evil is still evil. I must remind myself of this to keep the enemy from infiltrating my mind.

[kahless]

Meantime, during this war, you advocate passing illegal bills to throw out the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 2nd Amendment.

Thought balloon: "This is less than an ideal solution but what better way... " Lessers of evil is still evil. I must remind myself of this to keep the enemy from infiltrating my mind.

It is not evil to defend yourself from evil, rather than have to remember these slogans in the future while you are being marched off into an interment camp for wrong thinking, with no way to defend yourself or because you are considered old by the PTB you are put into early hospice so the fed can still afford socialized medicine.

[susano]

I believe in states rights in an ideal world but this is a war where the states are locking people up for crossing state lines with a firearm. This is less than an ideal solution but what better way to fight this war and stop the states from trampling on 2nd amendment rights? Do we wait years for the Supreme Court while people sit in jail while our countrymen are disarmed?

The left has thrown out the rule book while we are playing by the rule book. Sure fire way to lose the country to them.

While I am very much a states rights supporter, I believe that all states, by being members of the union, must abide by the bill of rights.

[DDE]

If you look at 1984 and brave New world as a template for how you want the country to be than by all means don't support Trump. Both of those authors invisioned an America that is post capitalism. I am going to support whatever candidate that rejects socialism and has a chance at winning, right now that happens to be Trump. I didn't put myself in this corner but I will fight to bone to keep the socialists from taking over.

George Orwell was a socialist.

[Swordsmyth]

While I am very much a states rights supporter, I believe that all states, by being members of the union, must abide by the bill of rights.
Exactly, if they don't want to then they can leave.

[Swordsmyth]

62% support for Amash!
It used to be 100%.

If he lost so much support here just think how much he lost among Republicans.

He didn't gain any from the Demoncrats.

[Swordsmyth]

Meantime, during this war, you advocate passing illegal bills to throw out the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 2nd Amendment.

Thought balloon: "This is less than an ideal solution but what better way... " Lessers of evil is still evil. I must remind myself of this to keep the enemy from infiltrating my mind.
Passing bills that mandate that the 2ndA is followed isn't illegal and doesn't throw out the 2ndA.

It's better to make progress towards our goals than than to achieve nothing while our enemies make progress because we can't get everything at once.

[PAF]

Passing bills that mandate that the 2ndA is followed isn't illegal and doesn't throw out the 2ndA.

It's better to make progress towards our goals than than to achieve nothing while our enemies make progress because we can't get everything at once.

Oh, yes, I forgot again. That the 2nd A “Law of the Land” must be enforced by allowing it with a bill. This way, the “bill” becomes welcomed and precedence established, that is until the next person comes among and re-writes a bill.

Gee, you are so smart.







For a statist, that is.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, yes, I forgot again. That the 2nd A “Law of the Land” must be enforced by allowing it with a bill. This way, the “bill” becomes welcomed and precedence established, that is until the next person comes among and re-writes a bill.

Gee, you are so smart.







For a statist, that is.
When bills have been passed to violate it then unless you can get a judge to overturn them you must pass bills to remove the violating bills.

But you are so much smarter to let the bills that violate it stand.:rolleyes:

[PAF]

When bills have been passed to violate it then unless you can get a judge to overturn them you must pass bills to remove the violating bills.

But you are so much smarter to let the bills that violate it stand.:rolleyes:


Any law, statute or ordinance which violates the Constitution is null and void.


How about a bill that says: if you attempt, or actually violate, any one of the Bill of Rights, you WILL be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and on your own dime - not the taxpayers.


Nahhhhh. I didn’t think so.

[Swordsmyth]

Any law, statute or ordinance which violates the Constitution is null and void.


How about a bill that says: if you attempt, or actually violate, any one of the Bill of Rights, you WILL be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and on your own dime - not the taxpayers.


Nahhhhh. I didn’t think so.
That's good, go ahead and try to get one, just don't complain when others take an incremental approach and actually get things done.

[Anti Federalist]

From another thread:

on hold

[PAF]

...


Following the link provided in Post #51 (Affordable Care Act):



The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2026:



(1) FEDERAL REVENUES.—For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution:


(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows:



Fiscal year 2017: $2,682,088,000,000.

Fiscal year 2018: $2,787,834,000,000.

Fiscal year 2019: $2,884,637,000,000.

Fiscal year 2020: $3,012,645,000,000.

Fiscal year 2021: $3,131,369,000,000.

Fiscal year 2022: $3,262,718,000,000.

Fiscal year 2023: $3,402,888,000,000.

Fiscal year 2024: $3,556,097,000,000.

Fiscal year 2025: $3,727,756,000,000.

Fiscal year 2026: $3,903,628,000,000.




(2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as follows:



Fiscal year 2017: $3,308,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2018: $3,350,010,000,000.

Fiscal year 2019: $3,590,479,000,000.

Fiscal year 2020: $3,779,449,000,000.

Fiscal year 2021: $3,947,834,000,000.

Fiscal year 2022: $4,187,893,000,000.

Fiscal year 2023: $4,336,952,000,000.

Fiscal year 2024: $4,473,818,000,000.

Fiscal year 2025: $4,726,484,000,000.

Fiscal year 2026: $4,961,154,000,000.





(3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.—For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as follows:



Fiscal year 2017: $3,264,662,000,000.

Fiscal year 2018: $3,329,394,000,000.

Fiscal year 2019: $3,558,237,000,000.

Fiscal year 2020: $3,741,304,000,000.

Fiscal year 2021: $3,916,533,000,000.

Fiscal year 2022: $4,159,803,000,000.

Fiscal year 2023: $4,295,742,000,000.

Fiscal year 2024: $4,419,330,000,000.

Fiscal year 2025: $4,673,813,000,000.

Fiscal year 2026: $4,912,205,000,000.





(4) DEFICITS.—For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:



Fiscal year 2017: $582,574,000,000.

Fiscal year 2018: $541,560,000,000.

Fiscal year 2019: $673,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2020: $728,659,000,000.

Fiscal year 2021: $785,164,000,000.

Fiscal year 2022: $897,085,000,000.

Fiscal year 2023: $892,854,000,000.

Fiscal year 2024: $863,233,000,000.

Fiscal year 2025: $946,057,000,000.

Fiscal year 2026: $1,008,577,000,000.





(5) PUBLIC DEBT.—Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(5)), the appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:



Fiscal year 2017: $20,034,788,000,000.

Fiscal year 2018: $20,784,183,000,000.

Fiscal year 2019: $21,625,729,000,000.

Fiscal year 2020: $22,504,763,000,000.

Fiscal year 2021: $23,440,271,000,000.

Fiscal year 2022: $24,509,421,000,000.

Fiscal year 2023: $25,605,527,000,000.

Fiscal year 2024: $26,701,273,000,000.

Fiscal year 2025: $27,869,175,000,000.

Fiscal year 2026: $29,126,158,000,000.





(6) DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC.—The appropriate levels of debt held by the public are as follows:



Fiscal year 2017: $14,593,316,000,000.

Fiscal year 2018: $15,198,740,000,000.

Fiscal year 2019: $15,955,144,000,000.

Fiscal year 2020: $16,791,740,000,000.

Fiscal year 2021: $17,713,599,000,000.

Fiscal year 2022: $18,787,230,000,000.

Fiscal year 2023: $19,901,290,000,000.

Fiscal year 2024: $21,033,163,000,000.

Fiscal year 2025: $22,301,661,000,000.

Fiscal year 2026: $23,691,844,000,000.

[pcosmar]

George Orwell was a socialist.

Perhaps.. Or perhaps just steeped in it by his surroundings.

he was nonetheless prophetic.

[enhanced_deficit]

He needs to become bit less purist and less extreme in his opposition to GOP-Adelson/Globalist wing, then will consider.


Quote:
He appears very anti Deep-Zionism.

He is not perfect and purist... but still appears far more principled than globalist GOP-Adelson which likes of Bannon saw as GOP-Democrats. With neocons-funded pro-war democrats mascrading as 'conservatives' pushing debt financed big gummit spending and globalist wars agenda, it is puzzling why rest of so called Republicans and Conservatives are not speaking up?
He may have been bit too purist this week but if his principles guided him to leave party of 'small minded' neocons (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534111-Dems-Party-of-big-gummit-GOP-Party-of-small-minds&p=6791410&viewfull=1#post6791410), that's his prerogative. Freedom can be messy sometimes.

Pragmatically, GOP-MAGA wing looks to be finished after 2020 with high risk of its funding drying up (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536149-Increasing-risk-of-both-Biden-and-Trump-losing-top-donors-and-2020-races&p=6820358&viewfull=1#post6820358), does GOP have alternate leadership ready or independents like Amash/new faces will rise up to take charge of what can be salvaged of left-wing neocons ravaged GOP?

[Champ]

Related conspiracy theory of the day:

The Libertarian Party has to find a candidate and they need to find someone fast after relatively high profile failures of Gary Johnson in back to back election cycles. Right now, Adam Kokesh has as good of a shot as anyone in the field at winning, and he is running on elimination of the federal government altogether. This of course, will not work for Libertarian delegates and dignitaries, nor will it look good for wanting to bring more people into the party after 2016's "naked man" incident.

So they need someone and they need someone fast, and Amash seems to be taking all of the steps to ease into that role. If he runs for the nomination, he will obviously blow most everyone away, including Kokesh.

I highly doubt he will run for that congressional seat again. He knew this the second he came out against Trump that that seat is history. He was calculated in doing this, he was not being as careless as some people are making it seem. What does fit is joining the Libertarian party and seeking the nomination, making some noise as an I or L in a Senate run, or quitting altogether which is what he had already hinted at all along.

It's probably all rubbish, but I definitely think he is up to something, we'll know soon.

[UWDude]

Related conspiracy theory of the day:

The Libertarian Party has to find a candidate and they need to find someone fast after relatively high profile failures of Gary Johnson in back to back election cycles. Right now, Adam Kokesh has as good of a shot as anyone in the field at winning, and he is running on elimination of the federal government altogether. This of course, will not work for Libertarian delegates and dignitaries, nor will it look good for wanting to bring more people into the party after 2016's "naked man" incident.

So they need someone and they need someone fast, and Amash seems to be taking all of the steps to ease into that role. If he runs for the nomination, he will obviously blow most everyone away, including Kokesh.

I highly doubt he will run for that congressional seat again. He knew this the second he came out against Trump that that seat is history. He was calculated in doing this, he was not being as careless as some people are making it seem. What does fit is joining the Libertarian party and seeking the nomination, making some noise as an I or L in a Senate run, or quitting altogether which is what he had already hinted at all along.

It's probably all rubbish, but I definitely think he is up to something, we'll know soon.

He cant win his seat, but trust me guyz, he is going to be in the presidential race to win it as your Libertarian Candidate for President!
He'll end that two-party system, in one great purple party.
Forgot to tell your monkeys to speak no evil, Justin.

[jon4liberty]

Shame were losing one of the better records in the house. TDS, his company and China, and trying to save face due to knowledge of knowing he'll probably lose his primary.

[familydog]

While I am very much a states rights supporter, I believe that all states, by being members of the union, must abide by the bill of rights.

That is not the original understanding of what the union is and how it was to operate. This concept was explicitly rejected at the Philadelphia convention and by the Supreme Court prior to the War of Southern Independence. The Bill of Rights was a check on the powers of the general government. The Constitution would have never been ratified had it been sold like you are suggesting.

[Swordsmyth]

That is not the original understanding of what the union is and how it was to operate. This concept was explicitly rejected at the Philadelphia convention and by the Supreme Court prior to the War of Southern Independence. The Bill of Rights was a check on the powers of the general government. The Constitution would have never been ratified had it been sold like you are suggesting.
That's how it should operate and it has been amended to operate that way.

Why would you want to allow states to violate your fundamental GOD given rights?

[RonZeplin]

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2Fb63ac3d9dd3f2cde83cee90f0dfecd3094fae4f2%2Fc%3D 592-23-1078-671%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2017%2F03%2F30%2FDetroitNews%2FB9951552 5Z.1_20170330173419_000_GNR1E0868.1-0.jpg%3Fwidth%3D180%26height%3D240%26fit%3Dcrop&f=1https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia% 2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F10%2FKokesh2013_%2528cropp ed%2529.jpg%2F111px-Kokesh2013_%2528cropped%2529.jpg&f=1

Justin Amash/Adam Kokesh 2020

[Swordsmyth]

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2Fb63ac3d9dd3f2cde83cee90f0dfecd3094fae4f2%2Fc%3D 592-23-1078-671%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2017%2F03%2F30%2FDetroitNews%2FB9951552 5Z.1_20170330173419_000_GNR1E0868.1-0.jpg%3Fwidth%3D180%26height%3D240%26fit%3Dcrop&f=1https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia% 2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F10%2FKokesh2013_%2528cropp ed%2529.jpg%2F111px-Kokesh2013_%2528cropped%2529.jpg&f=1

Justin Amash/Adam Kokesh 2020

Two losers for the price of one.

[RonZeplin]

Two losers for the price of one.

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/washington-independence-day-05-gty-jc-190704_hpEmbed_3x2_992.jpg

Cult of Global Tyranny.

[PAF]

]https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2F-mm-%2Fb63ac3d9dd3f2cde83cee90f0dfecd3094fae4f2%2Fc%3D 592-23-1078-671%2Flocal%2F-%2Fmedia%2F2017%2F03%2F30%2FDetroitNews%2FB9951552 5Z.1_20170330173419_000_GNR1E0868.1-0.jpg%3Fwidth%3D180%26height%3D240%26fit%3Dcrop&f=1https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia% 2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F10%2FKokesh2013_%2528cropp ed%2529.jpg%2F111px-Kokesh2013_%2528cropped%2529.jpg&f=1

Two losers for the price of one.


No surprise, coming from you.

[Swordsmyth]

No surprise, coming from you.
No surprise, coming from you.
If you had your way all liberty politicians would be losers.

[tfurrh]

Two losers for the price of one.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llxxl9Fm2Q1qjllo4o1_250.gif

[familydog]

That's how it should operate

Not according to federalism and the original understanding of the Constitution. I refer you to the Philadelphia ratifying convention and the first Congress who soundly rejected a proposed amendment by James Madison that would apply the Bill of Rights to the states. See also the 1833 Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore.


and it has been amended to operate that way.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Constitution was never amended in this way. What you are referring to is the doctrine of incorporation. This is an (incorrect) legal theory posited by the federal courts in the 1920s. The courts cite Section 1 of the 14th Amendment as their justification, but the drafters of the amendment stated that this clause was never meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights.


Why would you want to allow states to violate your fundamental GOD given rights?

What another state does is none of my concern in a federal republic. I can work to change my state, or I can move to one that is more aligned with my politics. That's what our founders fought for and that is the system that they created.

[timosman]

What another state does is none of my concern in a federal republic. I can work to change my state, or I can move to one that is more aligned with my politics. That's what our founders fought for and that is the system that they created.

:tears:

[Swordsmyth]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Constitution was never amended in this way. What you are referring to is the doctrine of incorporation. This is an (incorrect) legal theory posited by the federal courts in the 1920s. The courts cite Section 1 of the 14th Amendment as their justification, but the drafters of the amendment stated that this clause was never meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
That is not correct:


Justice Thomas, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment “fully applicable to the States.” Ante, at 1. I write separately because I believe there is a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is more faithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history.
Applying what is now a well-settled test, the plurality opinion concludes that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it is “fundamental” to the American “scheme of ordered liberty,” ante, at 19 (citing Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/145/index.html), 149 (1968)), and “ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ ” ante, at 19(quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/702/index.html), 721 (1997)). I agree with that description of the right. But I cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that speaks only to “process.” Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.


More at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/

More in posts to follow






What another state does is none of my concern in a federal republic. I can work to change my state, or I can move to one that is more aligned with my politics. That's what our founders fought for and that is the system that they created.
What if all the states start violating your rights?
What good is it to have the BoR designating fundamental GOD granted rights if any level of government is allowed to violate them?

The 14thA is very specific:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

It does not say: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of that State.”

As a matter of Natural Law no government may violate the rights of its citizens, anything that any level of government may violate is by definition not a right.
Whatever the consensus was at any point in the past doesn't matter, My rights come from GOD and no human government may violate them, any state that desires to violate my rights should be overruled, expelled or allowed to secede because this nation was founded on the principle of respecting the GOD given rights of the people.

[Swordsmyth]

Two questions still remain, both provoked by the textual similarity between §1’s Privileges or Immunities Clause and Article IV, §2. The first involves the nature of the rights at stake: Are the privileges or immunities of “citizens of the United States” recognized by §1 the same as the privileges and immunities of “citizens in the several States” to which Article IV, §2 refers? The second involves the restriction imposed on the States: Does §1, like Article IV, §2, prohibit only discrimination with respect to certain rights if the State chooses to recognize them, or does it require States to recognize those rights? I address each question in turn.

B

I start with the nature of the rights that §1’s Privileges or Immunities Clause protects. Section 1 overruled Dred Scott’s holding that blacks were not citizens of either the United States or their own State and, thus, did not enjoy “the privileges and immunities of citizens” embodied in the Constitution. 19 How., at 417. The Court in Dred Scott did not distinguish between privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and citizens in the several States, instead referring to the rights of citizens generally. It did, however, give examples of what the rights of citizens were—the constitutionally enumerated rights of “the full liberty of speech” and the right “to keep and carry arms.” Ibid.

Section 1 protects the rights of citizens “of the United States” specifically. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the privileges and immunities of such citizens included individual rights enumerated in the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms.

1

Nineteenth-century treaties through which the United States acquired territory from other sovereigns routinely promised inhabitants of the newly acquired territories that they would enjoy all of the “rights,” “privileges,” and “immunities” of United States citizens. See, e.g., Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits, Art. 6, Feb. 22, 1819, 8 Stat. 256–258, T. S. No. 327 (entered into force Feb. 19, 1821) (cession of Florida) (“The inhabitants of the territories which his Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States, by this Treaty, shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of all the privileges, rights, and immunities, of the citizens of the United States” (emphasis added)).[Footnote 7 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F7)] Commentators of the time explained that the rights and immunities of “citizens of the United States” recognized in these treaties “undoubtedly mean[t] those privileges that are common to all citizens of this republic.” Marcus, An Examination of the Expediency and Constitutionality of Prohibiting Slavery in the State of Missouri 17 (1819). It is therefore altogether unsurprising that several of these treaties identify liberties enumerated in the Constitution as privileges and immunities common to all United States citizens.

For example, the Louisiana Cession Act of 1803, which codified a treaty between the United States and France culminating in the Louisiana Purchase, provided that

“The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal constitution, to the enjoyments of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the religion which they profess.” Treaty Between the United States of America and the French Republic, Art. III, Apr. 30, 1803, 8 Stat. 202, T. S. No. 86 (emphasis added).[Footnote 8 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F8)]

The Louisiana Cession Act reveals even more about the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship because it provoked an extensive public debate on the meaning of that term. In 1820, when the Missouri Territory (which the United States acquired through the Cession Act) sought to enter the Union as a new State, a debate ensued over whether to prohibit slavery within Missouri as a condition of its admission. Some congressmen argued that prohibiting slavery in Missouri would deprive its inhabitants of the “privileges and immunities” they had been promised by the Cession Act. See, e.g., 35 Annals of Cong. 1083 (1855) (remarks of Kentucky Rep. Hardin). But those who opposed slavery in Missouri argued that the right to hold slaves was merely a matter of state property law, not one of the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship guaranteed by the Act.[Footnote 9 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F9)]
Daniel Webster was among the leading proponents of the antislavery position. In his “Memorial to Congress,” Webster argued that “[t]he rights, advantages and immunities here spoken of must . . . be such as are recognized or communicated by the Constitution of the United States,” not the “rights, advantages and immunities, derived exclusively from the State governments . . . .” D. Webster, A Memorial to the Congress of the United States on the Subject of Restraining the Increase of Slavery in New States to be Admitted into the Union 15 (Dec. 15, 1819) (emphasis added). “The obvious meaning” of the Act, in Webster’s view, was that “the rights derived under the federal Constitution shall be enjoyed by the inhabitants of [the territory].” Id., at 15–16 (emphasis added). In other words, Webster articulated a distinction between the rights of United States citizenship and the rights of state citizenship, and argued that the former included those rights “recognized or communicated by the Constitution.” Since the right to hold slaves was not mentioned in the Constitution, it was not a right of federal citizenship.
Webster and his allies ultimately lost the debate over slavery in Missouri and the territory was admitted as a slave State as part of the now-famous Missouri Compromise. Missouri Enabling Act of March 6, 1820, ch. 22, §8, 3 Stat. 548. But their arguments continued to inform public understanding of the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship. In 1854, Webster’s Memorial was republished in a pamphlet discussing the Nation’s next major debate on slavery—the proposed repeal of the Missouri Compromise through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, see The Nebraska Question: Comprising Speeches in the United States Senate: Together with the History of the Missouri Compromise 9–12 (1854). It was published again in 1857 in a collection of famous American speeches. See The Political Text-Book, or Encyclopedia: Containing Everything Necessary for the Reference of the Politicians and Statesmen of the United States 601–604 (M. Cluskey ed. 1857); see also Lash, 98 Geo. L. J., at 1294–1296 (describing Webster’s arguments and their influence).

2

Evidence from the political branches in the years leading to the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption demonstrates broad public understanding that the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship included rights set forth in the Constitution, just as Webster and his allies had argued. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation granting amnesty to former Confederates, guaranteeing “to all and to every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason . . . with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.” 15 Stat. 712.

Records from the 39th Congress further support this understanding.

a

After the Civil War, Congress established the Joint Committee on Reconstruction to investigate circumstances in the Southern States and to determine whether, and on what conditions, those States should be readmitted to the Union. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 6, 30 (1865) (hereinafter 39th Cong. Globe); M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights 57 (1986) (hereinafter Curtis). That Committee would ultimately recommend the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, justifying its recommendation by submitting a report to Congress that extensively catalogued the abuses of civil rights in the former slave States and argued that “adequate security for future peace and safety . . . can only be found in such changes of the organic law as shall determine the civil rights and privileges of all citizens in all parts of the republic.” See Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, S. Rep. No. 112, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 15 (1866); H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., p. XXI (1866).

As the Court notes, the Committee’s Report “was widely reprinted in the press and distributed by members of the 39th Congress to their constituents.” Ante, at 24; B. Kendrick, Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction 264–265 (1914) (noting that 150,000 copies of the Report were printed and that it was widely distributed as a campaign document in the election of 1866). In addition, newspaper coverage suggests that the wider public was aware of the Committee’s work even before the Report was issued. For example, the Fort Wayne Daily Democrat (which appears to have been unsupportive of the Committee’s work) paraphrased a motion instructing the Committee to

“enquire into [the] expediency of amending the Constitution of the United States so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument.” The ****** Congress!, Fort Wayne Daily Democrat, Feb. 1, 1866, p. 4 (emphasis added).

b

Statements made by Members of Congress leading up to, and during, the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment point in the same direction. The record of these debates has been combed before. See Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/46/index.html), 92–110 (1947) (Appendix to dissenting opinion of Black, J.) (concluding that the debates support the conclusion that §1 was understood to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the States); ante, at 14, n. 9, 26–27, n. 23, (opinion of the Court) (counting the debates among other evidence that §1 applies the Second Amendment against the States). Before considering that record here, it is important to clarify its relevance. When interpreting constitutional text, the goal is to discern the most likely public understanding of a particular provision at the time it was adopted. Statements by legislators can assist in this process to the extent they demonstrate the manner in which the public used or understood a particular word or phrase. They can further assist to the extent there is evidence that these statements were disseminated to the public. In other words, this evidence is useful not because it demonstrates what the draftsmen of the text may have been thinking, but only insofar as it illuminates what the public understood the words chosen by the draftsmen to mean.

(1)

Three speeches stand out as particularly significant. Representative John Bingham, the principal draftsman of §1, delivered a speech on the floor of the House in February 1866 introducing his first draft of the provision. Bingham began by discussing Barron and its holding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. He then argued that a constitutional amendment was necessary to provide “an express grant of power in Congress to enforce by penal enactment these great canons of the supreme law, securing to all the citizens in every State all the privileges and immunities of citizens, and to all the people all the sacred rights of person.” 39th Cong. Globe 1089–1090 (1866). Bingham emphasized that §1 was designed “to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It ‘hath that extent—no more.’ ” Id., at 1088.

Bingham’s speech was printed in pamphlet form and broadly distributed in 1866 under the title, “One Country, One Constitution, and One People,” and the subtitle, “In Support of the Proposed Amendment to Enforce the Bill of Rights.”[Footnote 10 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F10)] Newspapersalsoreported his proposal, with the New York Times providing particularly extensive coverage, including a full reproduction of Bingham’s first draft of §1 and his remarks that a constitutional amendment to “enforc[e]” the “immortal bill of rights” was “absolutely essential to American nationality.” N. Y. Times, Feb. 27, 1866, p. 8.
Bingham’s first draft of §1 was different from the version ultimately adopted. Of particular importance, the first draft grantedCongress the “power to make all laws … necessary and proper to secure” the “citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,” rather than restricting state power to “abridge” the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.[Footnote 11 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F11)] 39th Cong. Globe 1088.
That draft was met with objections, which the Timescovered extensively. A front-page article hailed the “Clear and Forcible Speech” by Representative Robert Hale against the draft, explaining—and endorsing—Hale’s view that Bingham’s proposal would “confer upon Congress all the rights and power of legislation now reserved to the States” and would “in effect utterly obliterate State rights and State authority over their own internal affairs.”[Footnote 12 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F12)] N. Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1866, p. 1.
Critically, Hale did not object to the draft insofar as it purported to protect constitutional liberties against state interference. Indeed, Hale stated that he believed (incorrectly in light of Barron) that individual rights enumerated in the Constitution were already enforceable against the States. See 39th Cong. Globe 1064 (“I have, somehow or other, gone along with the impression that there is that sort of protection thrown over us in some way, whether with or without the sanction of a judicial decision that we are so protected”); see N. Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1866, at 1. Hale’s misperception was not uncommon among members of the Reconstruction generation. See infra, at 38–40. But that is secondary to the point that the Times’coverage of this debate over §1’s meaning suggests public awareness of its main contours—i.e., that §1 would, at a minimum, enforce constitutionally enumerated rights of United States citizens against the States.
Bingham’s draft was tabled for several months. In the interim, he delivered a second well-publicized speech, again arguing that a constitutional amendment was required to give Congress the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. That speech was printed in pamphlet form, see Speech of Hon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio, on the Civil Rights Bill, Mar. 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe); see 39th Cong. Globe 1837 (remarks of Rep. Lawrence) (noting that the speech was “extensively published”), and the New York Times covered the speech on its front page. Thirty-Ninth Congress, N. Y. Times, Mar. 10, 1866, p. 1.
By the time the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment resumed, Bingham had amended his draft of §1 to include the text of the Privileges or Immunities Clause that was ultimately adopted. Senator Jacob Howard introduced the new draft on the floor of the Senate in the third speech relevant here. Howard explained that the Constitution recognized “a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, . . . some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution,” and that “there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees” against the States. 39th Cong. Globe 2765. Howard then stated that “the great object” of §1 was to “restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.” Id., at 2766. Section 1, he indicated, imposed “a general prohibition upon all the States, as such, from abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.” Id., at 2765.
In describing these rights, Howard explained that they included “the privileges and immunities spoken of” in Article IV, §2. Id., at 2765. Although he did not catalogue the precise “nature” or “extent” of those rights, he thought “Corfield v. Coryell” provided a useful description. Howard then submitted that

“[t]o these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be— . . . should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, [and] . . . the right to keep and to bear arms.” Ibid. (emphasis added).

News of Howard’s speech was carried in major newspapers across the country, including the New York Herald, see N. Y. Herald, May 24, 1866, p. 1, which was the best-selling paper in the Nation at that time, see A. Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction 187 (1998) (hereinafter Amar).[Footnote 13 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F13)] The New York Times carried the speech as well, reprinting a lengthy excerpt of Howard’s remarks, including the statements quoted above. N. Y. Times, May 24, 1866, p. 1. The following day’s Timeseditorialized on Howard’s speech, predicting that “[t]o this, the first section of the amendment, the Union party throughout the country will yield a ready acquiescence, and the South could offer no justifiable resistance,” suggesting that Bingham’s narrower second draft had not been met with the same objections that Hale had raised against the first. N. Y. Times, May 25, 1866, p. 4.
As a whole, these well-circulated speeches indicate that §1 was understood to enforce constitutionally declared rights against the States, and they provide no suggestion that any language in the section other than the Privileges or Immunities Clause would accomplish that task.

(2)

When read against this backdrop, the civil rights legislation adopted by the 39th Congress in 1866 further supports this view. Between passing the Thirteenth Amendment—which outlawed slavery alone—and the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed two significant pieces of legislation. The first was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided that “all persons born in the United States” were “citizens of the United States” and that “such citizens, of every race and color, . . . shall have the same right” to, among other things, “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Ch. 31, §1, 14 Stat. 27.
Both proponents and opponents of this Act described it as providing the “privileges” of citizenship to freedmen, and defined those privileges to include constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. See 39th Cong. Globe 474 (remarks of Sen. Trumbull) (stating that the “the late slaveholding States” had enacted laws “depriving persons of African descent of privileges which are essential to freemen,” including “prohibit any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms” and stating that “[t]he purpose of the bill under consideration is to destroy all these discriminations”); id., at 1266–1267 (remarks of Rep. Raymond) (opposing the Act, but recognizing that to “[m]ake a colored man a citizen of the United States” would guarantee to him, inter alia, “a defined status . . . a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms”).
Three months later, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, which also entitled all citizens to the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty” and “personal security.” Act of July 16, 1866, ch. 200, §14, 14 Stat. 176. The Act stated expressly that the rights of personal liberty and security protected by the Act “includ[ed] the constitutional right to bear arms.” Ibid.

(3)

There is much else in the legislative record. Many statements by Members of Congress corroborate the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause enforced constitutionally enumerated rights against the States. See Curtis 112 (collecting examples). I am not aware of any statement that directly refutes that proposition. That said, the record of the debates—like most legislative history—is less than crystal clear. In particular, much ambiguity derives from the fact that at least several Members described §1 as protecting the privileges and immunities of citizens “in the several States,” harkening back to Article IV, §2. See supra, at 28–29 (describing Sen. Howard’s speech).These statements can be read to support the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects some or all the fundamental rights of “citizens” described in Corfield. They can also be read to support the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause, like Article IV, §2, prohibits only state discrimination with respect to those rights it covers, but does not deprive States of the power to deny those rights to all citizens equally.

I examine the rest of the historical record with this understanding. But for purposes of discerning what the public most likely thought the Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean, it is significant that the most widely publicized statements by the legislators who voted on §1—Bingham, Howard, and even Hale—point unambiguously toward the conclusion that the Privileges or Immunities Clause enforces at least those fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution against the States, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

3

Interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment in the period immediately following its ratification help to establish the public understanding of the text at the time of its adoption.

Some of these interpretations come from Members of Congress. During an 1871 debate on a bill to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, Representative Henry Dawes listed the Constitution’s first eight Amendments, including “the right to keep and bear arms,” before explaining that after the Civil War, the country “gave the most grand of all these rights, privileges, and immunities, by one single amendment to the Constitution, to four millions of American citizens” who formerly were slaves. Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 475–476 (1871). “It is all these,” Dawes explained, “which are comprehended in the words ‘American citizen.’ ” Ibid.; see also id.,at 334 (remarks of Rep. Hoar) (stating that the Privileges or Immunities Clause referred to those rights “declared to belong to the citizen by the Constitution itself”). Even opponents of Fourteenth Amendment enforcement legislation acknowledged that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected constitutionally enumerated individual rights. See 2 Cong. Rec. 384–385 (1874) (remarks of Rep. Mills) (opposing enforcement law, but acknowledging, in referring to the Bill of Rights, that “[t]hese first amendments and some provisions of the Constitution of like import embrace the ‘privileges and immunities’ of citizenship as set forth in article 4, section 2 of the Constitution and in the fourteenth amendment” (emphasis added)); see Curtis 166–170 (collecting examples).
Legislation passed in furtherance of the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrates even more clearly this understanding. For example, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, which was titled in pertinent part “An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” and which is codified in the still-existing 42 U. S. C. §1983. That statute prohibits state officials from depriving citizens of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983 (emphasis added). Although the Judiciary ignored this provision for decades after its enactment, this Court has come to interpret the statute, unremarkably in light of its text, as protecting constitutionally enumerated rights. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/167/index.html), 171 (1961).
A Federal Court of Appeals decision written by a future Justice of this Court adopted the same understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 26 F. Cas. 79, 82 (No. 15,282) (CC SD Ala. 1871) (Woods, J.) (“We think, therefore, that the . . . rights enumerated in the first eight articles of amendment to the constitution of the United States, are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”). In addition, two of the era’s major constitutional treatises reflected the understanding that §1 would protect constitutionally enumerated rights from state abridgment.[Footnote 14 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F14)] A third such treatise unambiguously indicates that the Privileges or Immunities Clause accomplished this task. G. Paschal, The Constitution of the United States 290 (1868) (explaining that the rights listed in §1 had “already been guarantied” by Article IV and the Bill of Rights, but that “[t]he new feature declared” by §1 was that these rights, “which had been construed to apply only to the national government, are thus imposed upon the States”).
Another example of public understanding comes from United States Attorney Daniel Corbin’s statement in an 1871 Ku Klux Klan prosecution. Corbin cited Barron and declared:

“[T]he fourteenth amendment changes all that theory, and lays the same restriction upon the States that before lay upon the Congress of the United States—that, as Congress heretofore could not interfere with the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, now, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, the State cannot interfere with the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is included in the fourteenth amendment, under ‘privileges and immunities.’ ” Proceedings in the Ku Klux Trials at Columbia, S. C., in the United States Circuit Court, November Term, 1871, p. 147 (1872).

*  *  *

This evidence plainly shows that the ratifying public understood the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. As the Court demonstrates, there can be no doubt that §1 was understood to enforce the Second Amendment against the States. See ante, at 22–33. In my view, this is because the right to keep and bear arms was understood to be a privilege of American citizenship guaranteed by the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

C

The next question is whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause merely prohibits States from discriminating among citizens if they recognize the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, or whether the Clause requires States to recognize the right. The municipal respondents, Chicago and Oak Park, argue for the former interpretation. They contend that the Second Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth, authorizes a State to impose an outright ban on handgun possession such as the ones at issue here so long as a State applies it to all citizens equally.[Footnote 15 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F15)] The Court explains why this antidiscrimination-only reading of §1 as a whole is “implausible.” Ante, at 31 (citing Brief for Municipal Respondents 64). I agree, but because I think it is the Privileges or Immunities Clause that applies this right to the States, I must explain why this Clause in particular protects against more than just state discrimination, and in fact establishes a minimum baseline of rights for all American citizens.

1

I begin, again, with the text. The Privileges or Immunities Clause opens with the command that “[I]No State shall” abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Amdt. 14, §1 (emphasis added). The very same phrase opens Article I, §10 of the Constitution, which prohibits the States from “pass any Bill of Attainder” or “ex post facto Law,” among other things. Article I, §10 is one of the few constitutional provisions that limits state authority. In Barron, when Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the Bill of Rights as lacking “plain and intelligible language” restricting state power to infringe upon individual liberties, he pointed to Article I, §10 as an example of text that would have accomplished that task. 7 Pet., at 250. Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall would later describe Article I, §10 as “a bill of rights for the people of each state.” [I]Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 138 (1810). Thus, the fact that the Privileges or Immunities Clause uses the command “[n]o State shall”—which Article IV, §2 does not—strongly suggests that the former imposes a greater restriction on state power than the latter.
This interpretation is strengthened when one considers that the Privileges or Immunities Clause uses the verb “abridge,” rather than “discriminate,” to describe the limit it imposes on state authority. The Webster’s dictionary in use at the time of Reconstruction defines the word “abridge” to mean “[t]o deprive; to cut off; . . . as, to abridge one of his rights.” Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language, at 6. The Clause is thus best understood to impose a limitation on state power to infringe upon pre-existing substantive rights. It raises no indication that the Framers of the Clause used the word “abridge” to prohibit only discrimination.

This most natural textual reading is underscored by a well-publicized revision to the Fourteenth Amendment that the Reconstruction Congress rejected. After several Southern States refused to ratify the Amendment, President Johnson met with their Governors to draft a compromise. N. Y. Times, Feb. 5, 1867, p. 5. Their proposal eliminated Congress’ power to enforce the Amendment (granted in §5), and replaced the Privileges or Immunities Clause in §1 with the following:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States in which they reside, and the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Draft reprinted in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction 240 (W. Fleming ed. 1950) (hereinafter Fleming).

Significantly, this proposal removed the “[n]o State shall” directive and the verb “abridge” from §1, andalso changed the class of rights to be protected from those belonging to “citizens of the United States” to those of the “citizens in the several States.” This phrasing is materially indistinguishable from Article IV, §2, which generally was understood as an antidiscrimination provision alone. See supra, at 15–18. The proposal thus strongly indicates that at least the President of the United States and several southern Governors thought that the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which they unsuccessfully tried to revise, prohibited more than just state-sponsored discrimination.

2

The argument that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits no more than discrimination often is followed by a claim that public discussion of the Clause, and of §1 generally, was not extensive. Because of this, the argument goes, §1 must not have been understood to accomplish such a significant task as subjecting States to federal enforcement of a minimum baseline of rights. That argument overlooks critical aspects of the Nation’s history that underscored the need for, and wide agreement upon, federal enforcement of constitutionally enumerated rights against the States, including the right to keep and bear arms.

a

I turn first to public debate at the time of ratification. It is true that the congressional debates over §1 were relatively brief. It is also true that there is little evidence of extensive debate in the States. Many state legislatures did not keep records of their debates, and the few records that do exist reveal only modest discussion. See Curtis 145. These facts are not surprising.

First, however consequential we consider the question today, the nationalization of constitutional rights was not the most controversial aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its ratification. The Nation had just endured a tumultuous civil war, and §§2, 3, and 4—which reduced the representation of States that denied voting rights to blacks, deprived most former Confederate officers of the power to hold elective office, and required States to disavow Confederate war debts—were far more polarizing and consumed far more political attention. See Wildenthal 1600; Hardy, Original Popular Understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment as Reflected in the Print Media of 1866–1868, 30 Whittier L. Rev. 695, 699 (2009).
Second, the congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment reveal that many representatives, and probably many citizens, believed that the Thirteenth Amendment, the 1866 Civil Rights legislation, or some combination of the two, had already enforced constitutional rights against the States. Justice Black’s dissent in Adamson chronicles this point in detail. 332 U. S., at 107–108 (Appendix to dissenting opinion). Regardless of whether that understanding was accurate as a matter of constitutional law, it helps to explain why Congressmen had little to say during the debates about §1. See ibid.
Third, while Barron made plain that the Bill of Rights was not legally enforceable against the States, see supra, at 2, the significance of that holding should not be overstated. Like the Framers, see supra, at 14–15, many 19th-century Americans understood the Bill of Rights to declare inalienable rights that pre-existed all government. Thus, even though the Bill of Rights technically applied only to the Federal Government, many believed that it declared rights that no legitimate government could abridge.
Chief Justice Henry Lumpkin’s decision for the Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846), illustrates this view. In assessing state power to regulate firearm possession, Lumpkin wrote that he was “aware that it has been decided, that [the Second Amendment], like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States.” Id., at 250. But he still considered the right to keep and bear arms as “an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government,” and thus found the States bound to honor it. Ibid. Other state courts adopted similar positions with respect to the right to keep and bear arms and other enumerated rights.[Footnote 16 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F16)] Some courts even suggested that the protections in the Bill of Rights were legally enforceable against the States, Barron notwithstanding.[Footnote 17 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F17)] A prominent treatise of the era took the same position. W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 124–125 (2d ed. 1829) (reprint 2009) (arguing that certain of the first eight Amendments “appl[y] to the state legislatures” because those Amendments “form parts of the declared rights of the people, of which neither the state powers nor those of the Union can ever deprive them”); id., at 125–126 (describing the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” as “a restraint on both” Congress and the States); see also Heller, 554 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 34) (describing Rawle’s treatise as “influential”). Certain abolitionist leaders adhered to this view as well. Lysander Spooner championed the popular abolitionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with constitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men ‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 98 (1860).
In sum, some appear to have believed that the Bill of Rights did apply to the States, even though this Court had squarely rejected that theory. See, e.g., supra,at 27–28 (recounting Rep. Hale’s argument to this effect). Many others believed that the liberties codified in the Bill of Rights were ones that no State should abridge, even though they understood that the Bill technically did not apply to States. These beliefs, combined with the fact that most state constitutions recognized many, if not all, of the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, made the need for federal enforcement of constitutional liberties against the States an afterthought......

...
After the Civil War, Southern anxiety about an uprising among the newly freed slaves peaked. As Representative Thaddeus Stevens is reported to have said, “[w]hen it was first proposed to free the slaves, and arm the blacks, did not half the nation tremble? The prim conservatives, the snobs, and the male waiting-maids in Congress, were in hysterics.” K. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877, p. 104 (1965) (hereinafter Era of Reconstruction).

As the Court explains, this fear led to “systematic efforts” in the “old Confederacy” to disarm the more than 180,000 freedmen who had served in the Union Army, as well as other free blacks. See ante, at 23. Some States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms. Ante, at 23–24 (quoting 1865 Miss. Laws p. 165, §1, reprinted in 1 Fleming 289). Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites. See, e.g., La. Statute of 1865, reprinted in [I]id., at 280. Additionally, “[t]hroughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves.” Ante, at 24.
As the Court makes crystal clear, if the Fourteenth Amendment “had outlawed only those laws that discriminate on the basis of race or previous condition of servitude, African-Americans in the South would likely have remained vulnerable to attack by many of their worst abusers: the state militia and state peace officers.” Ante, at 32. In the years following the Civil War, a law banning firearm possession outright “would have been nondiscriminatory only in the formal sense,” for it would have “left firearms in the hands of the militia and local peace officers.” Ibid.
Evidence suggests that the public understood this at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The publicly circulated Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction extensively detailed these abuses, see ante, at 23–24 (collecting examples), and statements by citizens indicate that they looked to the Committee to provide a federal solution to this problem, see, e.g., 39th Cong. Globe 337 (remarks of Rep. Sumner) (introducing “a memorial from the colored citizens of the State of South Carolina” asking for, inter alia, “constitutional protection in keeping arms, in holding public assemblies, and in complete liberty of speech and of the press”).
One way in which the Federal Government responded was to issue military orders countermanding Southern arms legislation. See, e.g.,Jan. 17, 1866, order from Major General D. E. Sickles, reprinted in E. McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction 37 (1871) (“The constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed”). The significance of these steps was not lost on those they were designed to protect. After one such order was issued, The Christian Recorder, published by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, published the following editorial:

“ ‘We have several times alluded to the fact that the Constitution of the United States, guaranties to every citizen the right to keep and bear arms. . . . All men, without the distinction of color, have the right to keep arms to defend their homes, families, or themselves.’
“We are glad to learn that [the] Commissioner for this State . . . has given freedmen to understand that they have as good a right to keep fire arms as any other citizens. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and we will be governed by that at present.” Right to Bear Arms, Christian Recorder (Phila.), Feb. 24, 1866, pp. 29–30.

The same month, The Loyal Georgian carried a letter to the editor asking “Have colored persons a right to own and carry fire arms?—A Colored Citizen.” The editors responded as follows:

“Almost every day, we are asked questions similar to the above. We answer certainly you have the same right to own and carry fire arms that other citizens have. You are not only free but citizens of the United States and, as such, entitled to the same privileges granted to other citizens by the Constitution of the United States.

.     .     .     .     .
“. . . Article II, of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, gives the people the right to bear arms and states that this right shall not be infringed. . . . All men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.” Letter to the Editor, Loyal Georgian (Augusta), Feb. 3, 1866, p. 3.

These statements are consistent with the arguments of abolitionists during the antebellum era that slavery, and the slave States’ efforts to retain it, violated the constitutional rights of individuals—rights the abolitionists described as among the privileges and immunities of citizenship. See, e.g.,J. Tiffany, Treatise on the Unconstitutionality of American Slavery 56 (1849) (reprint 1969) (“pledg . . . to see that all the rights, privileges, and immunities, granted by the constitution of the United States, are extended to all”); id., at 99 (describing the “right to keep and bear arms” as one of those rights secured by “the constitution of the United States”). The problem abolitionists sought to remedy was that, under Dred Scott, blacks were not entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens under the Federal Constitution and that, in many States, whatever inalienable rights state law recognized did not apply to blacks. See, e.g., [I]Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848) (deciding, just two years after Chief Justice Lumpkin’s opinion in Nunn recognizing the right to keep and bear arms, see supra, at 39, that “[f]ree persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms”).
Section 1 guaranteed the rights of citizenship in the United States and in the several States without regard to race. But it was understood that liberty would be assured little protection if §1 left each State to decide which privileges or immunities of United States citizenship it would protect. As Frederick Douglass explained before §1’s adoption, “the Legislatures of the South can take from him the right to keep and bear arms, as they can—they would not allow a negro to walk with a cane where I came from, they would not allow five of them to assemble together.” In What New Skin Will the Old Snake Come Forth? An Address Delivered in New York, New York, May 10, 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 79, 83–84 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds., 1991) (footnote omitted). “Notwithstanding the provision in the Constitution of the United States, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,” Douglass explained that “the black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms.” Id., at 84. Absent a constitutional amendment to enforce that right against the States, he insisted that “the work of the Abolitionists [wa]s not finished.” Ibid.
This history confirms what the text of the Privileges or Immunities Clause most naturally suggests: Consistent with its command that “[n]o State shall … abridge” the rights of United States citizens, the Clause establishes a minimum baseline of federal rights, and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms plainly was among them.[Footnote 19 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F19)] ...

[Swordsmyth]

...There was noreason to interpret the Privileges or Immunities Clause as putting the Court to the extreme choice of interpreting the “privileges and immunities” of federal citizenship to mean either all thoserights listed in Corfield, or almost no rights at all. 16 Wall., at 76. The record is scant that the public understood the Clause to make the Federal Government “a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States” as the Slaughter-House majority feared. Id., at 78. For one thing, Corfield listed the “elective franchise” as one of the privileges and immunities of “citizens of the several states,” 6 F. Cas., at 552, yet Congress and the States still found it necessary to adopt the Fifteenth Amendment—which protects “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote”—two years after the Fourteenth Amendment’s passage. If the Privileges or Immunities Clause were understood to protect every conceivable civil right from state abridgment, the Fifteenth Amendment would have been redundant.

The better view, in light of the States and Federal Government’s shared history of recognizing certain inalienable rights in their citizens, is that the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship overlap. This is not to say that the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship are the same. At the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, States performed many more functions than the Federal Government, and it is unlikely that, simply by referring to “privileges or immunities,” the Framers of §1 meant to transfer every right mentioned in Corfield to congressional oversight. As discussed, “privileges” and “immunities” were understood only as synonyms for “rights.” See supra, at 9–11. It was their attachment to a particular group that gave them content, and the text and history recounted here indicate that the rights of United States citizens were not perfectly identical to the rights of citizens “in the several States.” Justice Swayne, one of the dissenters in Slaughter-House, made the point clear:


“The citizen of a State has the same fundamental rights as a citizen of the United States, and also certain others, local in their character, arising from his relation to the State, and in addition, those which belong to the citizen of the United States, he being in that relation also. There may thus be a double citizenship, each having some rights peculiar to itself. It is only over those which belong to the citizen of the United States that the category here in question throws the shield of its protection.” 16 Wall., at 126 (emphasis added).


Because the privileges and immunities of American citizenship include rights enumerated in the Constitution, they overlap to at least some extent with the privileges and immunities traditionally recognized in citizens in the several States.

A separate question is whether the privileges and immunities of American citizenship include any rights besides those enumerated in the Constitution. The four dissenting Justices in Slaughter-House would have held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected the unenumerated right that the butchers in that case asserted. See id., at 83 (Field, J., dissenting); id., at 111 (Bradley, J., dissenting); id., at 124 (Swayne, J., dissenting). Because this case does not involve an unenumerated right, it is not necessary to resolve the question whether the Clause protects such rights, or whether the Court’s judgment in Slaughter-House was correct.

Still, it is argued that the mere possibility that the Privileges or Immunities Clause may enforce unenumerated rights against the States creates “ ‘special hazards’ ” that should prevent this Court from returning to the original meaning of the Clause.[Footnote 21 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/#F21)] Post, at 3 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Ironically, the same objection applies to the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, which illustrates the risks of granting judges broad discretion to recognize individual constitutional rights in the absence of textual or historical guideposts. But I see no reason to assume that such hazards apply to the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The mere fact that the Clause does not expressly list the rights it protects does not render it incapable of principled judicial application. The Constitution contains many provisions that require an examination of more than just constitutional text to determine whether a particular act is within Congress’ power or is otherwise prohibited. See, e.g., Art. I, §8, cl. 18 (Necessary and Proper Clause); Amdt. 8 (Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause). When the inquiry focuses on what the ratifying era understood the Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean, interpreting it should be no more “hazardous” than interpreting these other constitutional provisions by using the same approach. To be sure, interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause may produce hard questions. But they will have the advantage of being questions the Constitution asks us to answer. I believe those questions are more worthy of this Court’s attention—and far more likely to yield discernable answers—than the substantive due process questions the Court has for years created on its own, with neither textual nor historical support.

Finding these impediments to returning to the original meaning overstated, I reject Slaughter-House insofar as it precludes any overlap between the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship...

...
In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. There is nothing about Cruikshank’s contrary holding that warrants its retention.


*  *  *
I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

[PAF]

As a matter of Natural Law no government may violate the rights of its citizens, anything that any level of government may violate is by definition not a right.
Whatever the consensus was at any point in the past doesn't matter, My rights come from GOD and no human government may violate them, any state that desires to violate my rights should be overruled, expelled or allowed to secede because this nation was founded on the principle of respecting the GOD given rights of the people.


Whoa, that is profound, Swordy!

I am omitting the rest of your post concerning “Rule by 5”.

So, if a human immigrant walks across open, unused land here in America, deciding where he/she wishes to plop a corn plant into the ground in order to homestead and make good use of the land, and happens to be carrying a .45, AR or whatever in order to protect/defend him/herself, you would have no problem with that.

And if you did the same, say in Mexico, or some island over by the Philippines, you be within your Natural God given Rights.

Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?

[Swordsmyth]

Whoa, that is profound, Swordy!

I am omitting the rest of your post concerning “Rule by 5”.

So, if a human immigrant walks across open, unused land here in America, deciding where he/she wishes to plop a corn plant into the ground in order to homestead and make good use of the land, and happens to be carrying a .45, AR or whatever in order to protect/defend him/herself, you would have no problem with that.

And if you did the same, say in Mexico, or some island over by the Philippines, you be within your Natural God given Rights.

Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?
There is no GOD given right to enter another nation's territory in violation of its rules.

[jmdrake]

I think the poll unintentionally pigeonholes people. Viable seats when funds are limited are typically where my money goes. Votes are cheap so I wouldn't have a problem with voting for him.

From the looks of things if he runs in 2020 he'll be the best candidate. I doubt Rand is gonna challenge Trump and will continue using his foothold and platform in the Senate to advance issues as best as possible. I think, however, it will be very telling if Amash does run as an independent and snatches more votes from the GOP than the democrats. I know people here like to think that the democrats are gonna break rank and come out to support him, but in my experience the only real debate about limited government, at least on the on the voter-level (meaning: not among the leadership), happens on the right, especially these days. Most of your average democrat voters just aren't at the point of frustration that they'll leave and go 3rd party/indy. They might stop supporting democrats but that doesn't mean you just add water and they become champions for smaller government. More than likely they'll end up wandering off to whatever forgotten universe the paleoconservatives went to die. (I really thought the left's walk-away movement was gonna be big but ultimately it was kind of disappointing. That's why I argue that pandering to the left is a bit dumb. Risk vs. gain just doesn't justify it.)

I don't see Justin running for POTUS in 2020. I see him running for his current seat as an independent. There is precedent for an incumbent congressman or senator running as an independent and winning. In a 3-way race if Justin was in a close 2nd behind the republican, many democrats would be tempted to throw their weight behind him just to shore up a vote for impeachment.

[PAF]

There is no GOD given right to enter another nation's territory in violation of its rules.


Like I said: Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?

Got it.

GodComplexShill :speaknoevil:

[Swordsmyth]

Like I said: Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?

Got it.

GodComplexShill :speaknoevil:
You can't cancel something that never existed.

Does a fence, a door lock, or a gun cancel a "GOD given right" of a stranger to enter your home?

[PAF]

You can't cancel something that never existed.

Does a fence, a door lock, or a gun cancel a "GOD given right" of a stranger to enter your home?


Ok, I get it. You still don’t want to show me your private property deed, which is a topic that you have avoided like the .GOV plague.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, I get it. You still don’t want to show me your private property deed, which is a topic that you have avoided like the .GOV plague.
I showed you our territorial deed, territory is a different level of ownership.

[shakey1]

First time in my life skipping an election.

Good call.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see Justin running for POTUS in 2020. I see him running for his current seat as an independent. There is precedent for an incumbent congressman or senator running as an independent and winning. In a 3-way race if Justin was in a close 2nd behind the republican, many democrats would be tempted to throw their weight behind him just to shore up a vote for impeachment.

He said he does not rule it out- though it is getting late to start fundraising for a run if he does intend to. https://www.newsweek.com/justin-amash-still-wouldnt-rule-out-2020-presidential-run-says-pelosi-making-strategic-1447916


Amash appeared Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, where host Jake Tapper asked him directly if he had any intention of running for the nation's highest office, whether it be as an independent candidate or as a nominee for a third party like the Libertarians.

"I still wouldn't rule anything like that out," responded the 39-year-old congressman. "I believe I have to use my skills, my public influence, where it serves the country best, and I believe I have to defend the Constitution in whichever way works best. And if that means doing something else then I do that. But I feel confident about running in my district. I feel a close tie to my community. I care a lot about my community; I want to represent them in Congress."

[RonZeplin]

When bills have been passed to violate it then unless you can get a judge to overturn them you must pass bills to remove the violating bills.

But you are so much smarter to let the bills that violate it stand.:rolleyes:

You're flat out wrong. Administrators have no obligation to enforce bad "law" aka unconstitutional legislation. There are three branches of gov for a reason, the judicial branch does not have the final say, the people who enforce DO, the executive branch.

You're just trying to make excuses for your scofflaw false god, the chief executive of the USA, Donnell of NYC.

Impeach, remove, lock 'em up! :flashinglight:

[Swordsmyth]

You're flat out wrong. Administrators have no obligation to enforce bad "law" aka unconstitutional legislation. There are three branches of gov for a reason, the judicial branch does not have the final say, the people who enforce DO, the executive branch.

You're just trying to make excuses for your scofflaw false god, the chief executive of the USA, Donnell of NYC.

Impeach, remove, lock 'em up! :flashinglight:
That's all well and good if you can get administrators that agree but since that doesn't usually happen then it is much better to pass laws telling them to stop violating rights as much as possible.

And Trump has to walk a tight-rope to avoid being impeached for "breaking the law" by a hostile Congress if he is going to stay in office and do some good.

You keep proving that you really want President Pelosi.

[familydog]

That is not correct:

1) This is not a rebuttal on the merits of my argument. The courts did not apply the Bill of Rights to the states until the 1920s. 1925 with the case Gitlow v. New York, specifically. The courts magically found a new interpretation and rejected over a century of legal jurisprudence. This is a fact. But even then, it wasn't until the 1950s that the courts took this idea and ran with it. 2) Regarding Justice Thomas, he is incorrect. The 1873 Slaughterhouses Cases specifically state that the Privileges or Immunities Clause cannot be used in the idea of incorporation. Justice Thomas is interpreting the clause radically different than the framers of the 14th Amendment had imagined. 3) The Due Process clause was intended as a procedural measure. Currently, the courts apply substantive due process instead. The difference is important and striking. 4) Justice Thomas is not an originalist. He is arguably a textualist. An originalist view of the 14th Amendment would argue the Amendment was illegally ratified and thus void. He would also argue that the Constitution does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states.



What if all the states start violating your rights?

This is an unlikely scenario. When have all 50 states agreed on anything? If you study the founding, you will see that the north and south were radically different culturally and philosophically. Thus, the only way to establish a country was a voluntary union between the 13 individual and sovereign states. Even then, the Constitution was barely ratified. The system was set up with disagreements between the states in mind. There are now 50 states to choose from. Presumably one of them would be a fit.

I would also like to add that one man's rights are another man's shackles.


What good is it to have the BoR designating fundamental GOD granted rights if any level of government is allowed to violate them?

You are taking issue with the founders. As I stated previously, there would be no United States if the framers of the Constitution insisted upon incorporation. There just wasn't support for that. What you champion is the elimination of federalism in favor of a centralized government. It is a one-size-fits-all argument that betrays the orginal understanding of how our system ought to operate.


As a matter of Natural Law no government may violate the rights of its citizens, anything that any level of government may violate is by definition not a right.
Whatever the consensus was at any point in the past doesn't matter, My rights come from GOD and no human government may violate them, any state that desires to violate my rights should be overruled, expelled or allowed to secede because this nation was founded on the principle of respecting the GOD given rights of the people.

You would be in line more with the French Revolution than you ever would be in the American Revolution. The French wanted to eliminate the past. As do Marxists. History needs to be erased in order to shape the future. I disagree. We need our past. Our traditions and heritage are crucial to a functioning and peaceful society. If we erase our history, what do we have left? If we acknowledge our history and fail to adhere to it, then we are a slave to totalitarianism at the whim of the mob.

[EBounding]

I don't see Justin running for POTUS in 2020. I see him running for his current seat as an independent. There is precedent for an incumbent congressman or senator running as an independent and winning. In a 3-way race if Justin was in a close 2nd behind the republican, many democrats would be tempted to throw their weight behind him just to shore up a vote for impeachment.

That's what I think too. I hope he doesn't run in 2020. Actually winning re-election as an independent would give more credibility to a future 3rd party presidential run.

His biggest hurdle is that Michigan is a straight ticket state. I think he has a decent chance though if both parties nominate lousy candidates.

[cruzrulez]

No I will not support him as an independent. He's aligned tacitly, although not outright with bill kristol. Maybe if he disavowed bill kristol and also was as hard on the obama administration for the fisa abuse as he dogpiled on trump I could see him more or less as ideologically consistent - but he's not and isn't.

[revgen]

I won't support him financially if he's running for a congressional seat. I'll be throwing money away. National elections are impossible to win for independents and 3rd parties. If he's running for a local or state office, I'll think about it. It's the state election laws that favor GOP and Dems. Only state reps can change them.

[EBounding]

I won't support him financially if he's running for a congressional seat. I'll be throwing money away. National elections are impossible to win for independents and 3rd parties. If he's running for a local or state office, I'll think about it. It's the state election laws that favor GOP and Dems. Only state reps can change them.

The state legislature did eliminate straight ticket voting, but then voters approved a proposal to bring it back.

[shakey1]

Not sure... could be too soon to tell just what direction he’s gonna take. RP gave him a pretty strong endorsement when he was just getting started, but things change.

[Swordsmyth]

1) This is not a rebuttal on the merits of my argument. The courts did not apply the Bill of Rights to the states until the 1920s. 1925 with the case Gitlow v. New York, specifically. The courts magically found a new interpretation and rejected over a century of legal jurisprudence. This is a fact. But even then, it wasn't until the 1950s that the courts took this idea and ran with it. 2) Regarding Justice Thomas, he is incorrect. The 1873 Slaughterhouses Cases specifically state that the Privileges or Immunities Clause cannot be used in the idea of incorporation. Justice Thomas is interpreting the clause radically different than the framers of the 14th Amendment had imagined. 3) The Due Process clause was intended as a procedural measure. Currently, the courts apply substantive due process instead. The difference is important and striking. 4) Justice Thomas is not an originalist. He is arguably a textualist. An originalist view of the 14th Amendment would argue the Amendment was illegally ratified and thus void. He would also argue that the Constitution does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states.
Thomas lays out an excellent case that the 14thA absolutely imposed the BoR on the states and that people said it would when it was passed, see the other posts I mad with longer pieces of his opinion.





This is an unlikely scenario. When have all 50 states agreed on anything? If you study the founding, you will see that the north and south were radically different culturally and philosophically. Thus, the only way to establish a country was a voluntary union between the 13 individual and sovereign states. Even then, the Constitution was barely ratified. The system was set up with disagreements between the states in mind. There are now 50 states to choose from. Presumably one of them would be a fit.

All 50 states agree on many things that violate your rights.


I would also like to add that one man's rights are another man's shackles.
That's just plain wrong.




You are taking issue with the founders. As I stated previously, there would be no United States if the framers of the Constitution insisted upon incorporation. There just wasn't support for that. What you champion is the elimination of federalism in favor of a centralized government. It is a one-size-fits-all argument that betrays the orginal understanding of how our system ought to operate.
The founders also still had slaves, are you going to argue that we should still allow that?
Making the states recognize some basic human rights isn't destroying federalism, all the other restrictions on the Federal government still apply and most powers are reserved to the states.




You would be in line more with the French Revolution than you ever would be in the American Revolution. The French wanted to eliminate the past. As do Marxists. History needs to be erased in order to shape the future. I disagree. We need our past. Our traditions and heritage are crucial to a functioning and peaceful society. If we erase our history, what do we have left? If we acknowledge our history and fail to adhere to it, then we are a slave to totalitarianism at the whim of the mob.
You would be more in line with the French Revolution because it was just about who got to rule instead of fundamental GOD given rights.

It is ridiculous that you are putting state governments above GOD given individual rights, if any state and its people are insistent on violating rights then they should be allowed to leave the union or expelled from it.

[revgen]

The state legislature did eliminate straight ticket voting, but then voters approved a proposal to bring it back.
I didn't know that. Either the voters were fooled by propaganda or the votes were rigged. Or both.

[familydog]

Thomas lays out an excellent case that the 14thA absolutely imposed the BoR on the states and that people said it would when it was passed, see the other posts I mad with longer pieces of his opinion.

You are correct that Thomas lays out a case, but he is wrong. He is not an originalist. He is in favor of a living constitution that changes with the times.


All 50 states agree on many things that violate your rights.

Such as?



That's just plain wrong.

One man's human right to healthcare is another man's burden to provide it.


The founders also still had slaves, are you going to argue that we should still allow that?

I'm beginning to think that you have no interest in genuine dialogue and debate.


Making the states recognize some basic human rights isn't destroying federalism, all the other restrictions on the Federal government still apply and most powers are reserved to the states.

You must be unaware of what federalism is then.


You would be more in line with the French Revolution because it was just about who got to rule instead of fundamental GOD given rights.

With all due respect, you have no idea what the French Revolution was about.


It is ridiculous that you are putting state governments above GOD given individual rights, if any state and its people are insistent on violating rights then they should be allowed to leave the union or expelled from it.

I'm abiding by the Constitution and the American tradition. That's all.

[Swordsmyth]

You are correct that Thomas lays out a case, but he is wrong. He is not an originalist. He is in favor of a living constitution that changes with the times.

He is absolutely right and he lays out an originalist case.



Such as?

Most of their laws.
Just one obvious example is that all 50 states require a Driver's License to drive a car.




One man's human right to healthcare is another man's burden to provide it.
There is no human right to healthcare, I'm beginning to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about.





I'm beginning to think that you have no interest in genuine dialogue and debate.
I'd say the same for you, you tried to claim that we should do things one way because the founders did it that way as opposed to whether or not it is the right thing but now you want to run away because I demonstrated how absurd that is.




You must be unaware of what federalism is then.
No, that would be you.




With all due respect, you have no idea what the French Revolution was about.
I most certainly understand it better than you and you have absolutely no idea what the American Revolution was about either.




I'm abiding by the Constitution and the American tradition. That's all.
No, but even if your interpretation was correct you are arguing against changing it to be better too.

[familydog]

He is absolutely right and he lays out an originalist case.

You do not know what originalism is.


Most of their laws.
Just one obvious example is that all 50 states require a Driver's License to drive a car.

Most of their laws is not an answer.

Licensing in and of itself is not a violation of your liberties unless you are an anarchist. I assume that you are not.


There is no human right to healthcare, I'm beginning to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about.

According to whom?


I'd say the same for you, you tried to claim that we should do things one way because the founders did it that way as opposed to whether or not it is the right thing but now you want to run away because I demonstrated how absurd that is.

Now I know you are not serious about having a genuine dialogue. I don't have time to listen to an SJW talk about how the founders were terrible racists and therefore they should be ignored. I'll take my exist after this post.


No, that would be you.

Your rhetorical jujitsu is astounding.


I most certainly understand it better than you and you have absolutely no idea what the American Revolution was about either.

By stating that the French Revolution was about who got to rule as opposed to about liberty and equality, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. The point is that the French and the Americans had polar opposite definitions of liberty and equality. You must not be aware of this.


No, but even if your interpretation was correct you are arguing against changing it to be better too.

I'm arguing against unconstitutional actions be the general government. Its really that simple.

[Swordsmyth]

You do not know what originalism is.
LOL




Most of their laws is not an answer.
Yes it is.


Licensing in and of itself is not a violation of your liberties unless you are an anarchist. I assume that you are not.
I am a well known non-anarchist but even I know having to get permission is a violation of my rights, if someone causes enough damage you could put them under a court order barring them from driving, you don't make everyone jump through government hoops to exercise the right to travel.




According to whom?
According to anyone who isn't a liberal lunatic, you have no right to the property or services of others.




Now I know you are not serious about having a genuine dialogue. I don't have time to listen to an SJW talk about how the founders were terrible racists and therefore they should be ignored. I'll take my exist after this post.
I didn't say they were evil racists and therefore should be ignored, I said that they were not perfect and we are not bound by their flaws and errors.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.




Your rhetorical jujitsu is astounding.
It's a match for yours.




By stating that the French Revolution was about who got to rule as opposed to about liberty and equality, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Keep proving your ignorance, the French Revolution CLAIMED to be about liberty and equality but it was not about either in the least, it was about who got to rule and the winners proceeded to violate everyone else's rights in a legendary manner.


The point is that the French and the Americans had polar opposite definitions of liberty and equality. You must not be aware of this.
The French were liars and hypocrites, The Americans actually believed in GOD given individual rights.
You believe in state governments.



I'm arguing against unconstitutional actions be the general government. Its really that simple.
They aren't unconstitutional because the Constitution has been amended and even if it hadn't you are arguing against amending it to preserve the individual's rights against state governments.


:rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

He said he does not rule it out- though it is getting late to start fundraising for a run if he does intend to. https://www.newsweek.com/justin-amash-still-wouldnt-rule-out-2020-presidential-run-says-pelosi-making-strategic-1447916

Yeah...and Trump didn't rule out bombing Iran over a downed drone....but he ultimately didn't do it. There's no reason for him to take that option off the table at this point.

[TheCount]

You do not know what originalism is.

Swordsmyth thinks that originalism permits nationalization of the internet under the Post Office.

[loveshiscountry]

With all due respect, so far the 15 bootlickers of big government in this poll

Because Amash votes extremely pro liberty doesn't matter. He went after Trump and by golly no one goes after our guy. Why don't everyone of you go back to England and get in a circle jerk with King George. And then die in your sleep. Amen.

[UWDude]

With all due respect, so far the 14 boot lickers of big government in this poll are:
AngryCanadian, bubbleboy, cruzrulez, euphemia, fcreature, floridave, kahless, Mach, mrsat_98, spudea, Stratovarious, susano, Swordsmyth, UWDude

Because Amash votes extremely pro liberty doesn't matter. He went after Trump and by golly no one goes after our guy. Why don't everyone of you go back to England and get in a circle jerk with King George. And then die in your sleep. Amen.

Id choose a democrat that was against impeaching Trump over the collusion hoax before id ever support Amash.

And saying nothing of the attempted framing of the president over a hoax, not to mention the wedge being driven between Russia and America by the criminal hoax, by Amash, means he is not pro liberty at all, he is just "with all due respect" a calculating lawyer sleazebag, and dumb one at that, since it is clear he severely miscalculated, (not to mention it is clear he thinks the meuller report was worth reading).

"golly"

[Ender]

Id choose a democrat that was against impeaching Trump over the collusion hoax before id ever support Amash.

And saying nothing of the attempted framing of the president over a hoax, not to mention the wedge being driven between Russia and America by the criminal hoax, by Amash, means he is not pro liberty at all, he is just "with all due respect" a calculating lawyer sleazebag, and dumb one at that, since it is clear he severely miscalculated, (not to mention it is clear he thinks the meuller report was worth reading).

"golly"

Amash never believed the Russian hoax. His POV on impeachment came from possible obstruction from Trump in the investigation process. These kinds of possible actions were also what got Clinton impeached as well as Nixon.

But of course, don't read the report & just keep spouting stuff that has nothing to do with Amash's actions.

[UWDude]

Amash never believed the Russian hoax. His POV on impeachment came from possible obstruction from Trump in the investigation process. These kinds of possible actions were also what got Clinton impeached as well as Nixon.

But of course, don't read the report & just keep spouting stuff that has nothing to do with Amash's actions.

Sure he didn't believe it, but he believed in it enough to think the Meuller report was worth a damn. He believed in it enough to never once condemn it for the frame job witch hunt it was. He believed in it enough to claim there were grounds for impeachment based on the flimsiest of excuses, flimsier than a fart on a sailboat.

[UWDude]

It would be poetic justice to see the five eyes frame Amash for being a mole for Palestinian terrorists, then have media blast him non stop for it for two years, and then when he said " this is a witch hunt and a hoax" see him thrown in prison for 20 years for obstruction by some weaselly little lawyer snit.

[UWDude]

the best part would be a dossier paid for with taxpayer money that said he payed gay strippers to poop on jimmy carters bed before he screwed them.

[nobody's_hero]

Sure he didn't believe it, but he believed in it enough to think the Meuller report was worth a damn. He believed in it enough to never once condemn it for the frame job witch hunt it was. He believed in it enough to claim there were grounds for impeachment based on the flimsiest of excuses, flimsier than a fart on a sailboat.

Yeah, if the foundation is a lie, I don't see how anyone can get terribly animated over any truths that are built upon it. Dems and the MSM have really been non-stop badgering this president from the moment he got into office hoping for a "gotcha!"-moment. Typical Antifa-type tactics.

There are A LOT of matters of substance to take issue with, but of course those don't get air-time, because they might cause real non-partisan agreement, which would be bad for TPTB.

As much as Amash is patting himself on the back about what a great non-partisan he is, he really stuck his foot into a whole wash tub full of partisan bull****.

[UWDude]

Yeah, if the foundation is a lie, I don't see how anyone can get terribly animated over any truths that are built upon it. Dems and the MSM have really been non-stop badgering this president from the moment he got into office hoping for a "gotcha!"-moment. Typical Antifa-type tactics.

There are A LOT of matters of substance to take issue with, but of course those don't get air-time, because they might cause real non-partisan agreement, which would be bad for TPTB.

As much as Amash is patting himself on the back about what a great non-partisan he is, he really stuck his foot into a whole wash tub full of partisan bull****.
actually, most democrats are not calling for impeachment. This is beyong partisanship.

[PAF]

Dude- we are already post capitalism. Real capitalism is free trade, freedom to operate a business as you would wish, and real money.

All the rabble about socialism/communists etc is a ruse to keep us all fighting with each other while the last vestige of liberty blows away. Everyone is so indoctrinated & so in the Matrix that they fight to keep their prison walls secure, w/o a clue where they really are.

+ Spread Rep

[loveshiscountry]

Sure he didn't believe it, but he believed in it enough to think the Meuller report was worth a damn. He believed in it enough to never once condemn it for the frame job witch hunt it was. He believed in it enough to claim there were grounds for impeachment based on the flimsiest of excuses, flimsier than a fart on a sailboat.

Quit commenting when you don't know wtf you're against. It has nothing to do with what YOU think he believed about the report. It isn't about that. It's about obstruction occurring or not.

[Swordsmyth]

Swordsmyth thinks that originalism permits nationalization of the internet under the Post Office.

That's a lie.

[Swordsmyth]

With all due respect, so far the 14 boot lickers of big government in this poll are:
AngryCanadian, bubbleboy, cruzrulez, euphemia, fcreature, floridave, kahless, Mach, mrsat_98, spudea, Stratovarious, susano, Swordsmyth, UWDude

Because Amash votes extremely pro liberty doesn't matter. He went after Trump and by golly no one goes after our guy. Why don't everyone of you go back to England and get in a circle jerk with King George. And then die in your sleep. Amen.
I'm not going to waste my limited money on a candidate who is committing political suicide, I might have supported him if he stayed a Republican but he might as well have just resigned by endorsing the idiotic treasonous "obstruction" charges and then leaving the party.

[loveshiscountry]

I'm not going to waste my limited money on a candidate who is committing political suicide, I might have supported him if he stayed a Republican but he might as well have just resigned by endorsing the idiotic treasonous "obstruction" charges and then leaving the party.

Understood, money should go to where it will be most efficient, but support includes other things besides money.

[TheCount]

That's a lie. Your record of truth-telling and straightforward honesty speaks for itself.

[cruzrulez]

Sure he didn't believe it, but he believed in it enough to think the Meuller report was worth a damn. He believed in it enough to never once condemn it for the frame job witch hunt it was. He believed in it enough to claim there were grounds for impeachment based on the flimsiest of excuses, flimsier than a fart on a sailboat.

amashole is aligned with bill kristol now. says a lot.

[farrar]

Its been awhile since Ive been on the forums. Just wanted to say that i hope Amash does well.

Some people seem to think Republicans grew a spine since Trump. They didn't. They just serve a new master now, and he is the peak of establishment. They are purging the party of people with half a brain that think for themselves. And even when they fail, the wounds prove fatal in the general.

Amash was already screwed with the way things were going, before the call for impeachment. But I hope that somehow, with all this, he can drag a trump-suckler with him. Maybe Trump himself.

Dont get me wrong, im tried of TDS. Alot of the Trump hate is overblown, and im tired of the anonymous sources in the New York times and other outlets. Its not journalism. But im also tired of TDDS. Conservatives and Libertarians are letting him off the hook, because they like how angry he makes the liberals and he throws us a bone once in awhile. Or maybe they like the wall.

But im not going to hold my tongue for that. Give 'em all hell Amash!

[Ender]

Its been awhile since Ive been on the forums. Just wanted to say that i hope Amash does well.

Some people seem to think Republicans grew a spine since Trump. They didn't. They just serve a new master now, and he is the peak of establishment. They are purging the party of people with half a brain that think for themselves. And even when they fail, the wounds prove fatal in the general.

Amash was already screwed with the way things were going, before the call for impeachment. But I hope that somehow, with all this, he can drag a trump-suckler with him. Maybe Trump himself.

Dont get me wrong, im tried of TDS. Alot of the Trump hate is overblown, and im tired of the anonymous sources in the New York times and other outlets. Its not journalism. But im also tired of TDDS. Conservatives and Libertarians are letting him off the hook, because they like how angry he makes the liberals and he throws us a bone once in awhile. Or maybe they like the wall.

But im not going to hold my tongue for that. Give 'em all hell Amash!

Pretty much my POV.

[Ender]

Quit commenting when you don't know wtf you're against. It has nothing to do with what YOU think he believed about the report. It isn't about that. It's about obstruction occurring or not.

Exactly.

[Swordsmyth]

Your record of truth-telling and straightforward honesty speaks for itself.
Yes, it does.
And so does your record of lies.

You can't back up your lie or you would have.

[loveshiscountry]

amashole is aligned with bill kristol now. says a lot.

cruzrulez makes things up about Amash. says a lot. Amash hasn't changed from his small government philosophy.

[cruzrulez]

cruzrulez makes things up about Amash. says a lot. Amash hasn't changed from his small government philosophy.

I'm not making it up, have you been paying much attention lately? here's a link for you (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/political-insider-conservative-group-backs-amash-upholding-his-oath/1501263001/)
If amashole is so principled, he'd disavow kristol - but he doesn't.

"All honor to Justin Amash, who has done so much today to set an example of constitutional responsibility and mature, civic discourse," Kristol reacted on Twitter (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1129881140255514625) at the time.

[Superfluous Man]

I'm not making it up, have you been paying much attention lately? here's a link for you (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/political-insider-conservative-group-backs-amash-upholding-his-oath/1501263001/)
If amashole is so principled, he'd disavow kristol - but he doesn't.

"All honor to Justin Amash, who has done so much today to set an example of constitutional responsibility and mature, civic discourse," Kristol reacted on Twitter (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1129881140255514625) at the time.

Ahhh.

And who is this Cruz who supposedly rulez?

[loveshiscountry]

I'm not making it up, have you been paying much attention lately? here's a link for you (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/political-insider-conservative-group-backs-amash-upholding-his-oath/1501263001/)
If amashole is so principled, he'd disavow kristol - but he doesn't.

"All honor to Justin Amash, who has done so much today to set an example of constitutional responsibility and mature, civic discourse," Kristol reacted on Twitter (https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1129881140255514625) at the time.

Why disavow Kristol when he doesn't support many of the same things Amash does? Amash has to clarify that? Why? It's poser mentality. Why does Amash need to disavow the klan? Because a klansman donated?

Amash is still for small government. He hasn't changed. You have.

[enhanced_deficit]

Amash is going to be better than any politician funded by globalist neocon Adelson ( although risk in increasing that MAGA won't be getting funding from his top donor in 2020 after UK blunder).

But in terms of experienced leadership, does GOP have alternate sound, small gummit, libertarian minded leadership if neocons sponsored MAGA indded did not win nomination for 2020?

[Mach]

amashole is aligned with bill kristol now. says a lot.


cruzrulez makes things up about Amash. says a lot. Amash hasn't changed from his small government philosophy.

A conservative group is running ads in Rep. Justin Amash's congressional district urging voters to show support fohim after Amash became the only GOP lawmaker in Congress to back impeachment for President Donald Trump.

The group Republicans for the Rule of Law, which is headed byTrump critic and former Weekly Standard founder and editor Bill Kristol, is airing two ads on the Fox News show "Fox & Friends" in the Grand Rapids market for the next two days.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/political-insider-conservative-group-backs-amash-upholding-his-oath/1501263001/