Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 64

Thread: SCOTUS strikes down anti carry NY gun law

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I don't care. (By all means, file it under the "every other form of federal supremacy" option I offered, if that suits you better.)

    And while we're at it, the 2nd Amendment (whether "incorporated" or not) can go kick rocks, too.

    As with every other right, the right to keep and bear arms should not ever be regarded as contingent upon what the Constitution does or does not say (or, more precisely, whatever the feds choose to say at any given moment about what the Constitution does or does not say, since that is really what it comes down to in actual practice). That's exactly what the anti-federalists tried to warn people about. And now, here we are, thirsting over a pleasing result[1] that should never have been left up to the feds to decree for all the states in the first place. ("All eggs, meet basket. Basket, all eggs ... What's that? You're already acquainted? You've known each other since 1788? Well, I'll be damned ...")



    [1] And it is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.
    I'm not sure I understand. The only reason I can gather for not needing a 2nd Amendment in the first place, is that you consider it to be a universal inalienable right.

    Is that what you believe?

    If an anti-gun group bought some property, seceded, and formed a community where guns are not allowed (except for military), would you consider that to be some violation of a God given right to bear arms?

    In my opinion, if people are going to enter a voluntary pact with another (which the Constitution was originally intended to represent), it's better to be specific about the terms of the relationship than leave it to vague interpretation.

    Now, if you're saying the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the Constitution isn't a voluntary pact and you never signed it, then I guess that makes sense in some cut-off-nose-to-spite-face kind of sense
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Anyone else read the dissent in this case?

    https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/use...UqQgvi13_8U/v0

    It's a total confusing mess. It's not even talking about the right to bear arms - it's all about gun violence and the methods the states can use to curb it.

    Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of
    gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in
    various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of
    different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’
    efforts to do so.
    Um, no it doesn't. It just says that you can't limit people's rights in a vain attempt to reduce gun violence. In fact, your reasons for wanting to limit people's rights are completely irrelevant! And these are SC Justices!
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Anyone else read the dissent in this case?

    https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/use...UqQgvi13_8U/v0

    It's a total confusing mess. It's not even talking about the right to bear arms - it's all about gun violence and the methods the states can use to curb it.



    Um, no it doesn't. It just says that you can't limit people's rights in a vain attempt to reduce gun violence. In fact, your reasons for wanting to limit people's rights are completely irrelevant! And these are SC Justices!
    Clowns in gowns
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  6. #34
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I'm not sure I understand. The only reason I can gather for not needing a 2nd Amendment in the first place, is that you consider it to be a universal inalienable right.

    Is that what you believe?
    Yes. Or close enough, anyway.

    But that is not my reason for thinking that gun rights should not be a federal issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    If an anti-gun group bought some property, seceded, and formed a community where guns are not allowed (except for military), would you consider that to be some violation of a God given right to bear arms?
    No - not so long as membership in such a community is voluntary, and that community does not seek to enforce control over any other property not their own (or not contractually encumbered by them).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    In my opinion, if people are going to enter a voluntary pact with another (which the Constitution was originally intended to represent), it's better to be specific about the terms of the relationship than leave it to vague interpretation.
    A voluntary pact already existed between the states. The Constitution was originally intended to consolidate more power in the hands of fewer people.

    An explicit "guarantee" of gun rights was not even considered necessary at that level until the former was usurped by the latter.

    And for good reason, as it turned out. The anti-federalists were right. Even Alexander Hamilton warned that the Bill of Rights would come to be regarded as a list of permissions granted by the federal government to "the people", rather than as a list of restrictions to be imposed upon the federal government by the states. We all know how that went. The mere fact it was sensed that an assurance from the feds that they would not interfere with gun rights (in the form of the 2nd Amendment) was, all by itself, a huge "red flag" (ha-ha). Note that no one thought it necessary to so amend the Articles of Confederation when they were established.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Now, if you're saying the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the Constitution isn't a voluntary pact and you never signed it, then I guess that makes sense in some cut-off-nose-to-spite-face kind of sense
    I am saying that the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the federal level is not the proper scope or venue in which to address such matters (any more than it is the proper scope or venue in which to decree whether people ought to eat their veggies).

    That is for state-level constitutions (or even more localized instruments) - and prior to the Constitution, that is where it was dealt with. As far as I know, every state had constitutional sureties for gun rights in some form or another. And if any did not, then that should have been a problem for them to fix for themselves (or not), and not a problem for the feds to "solve" for them (while forcibly imposing that "solution" on them and every other state, as well).
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-24-2022 at 09:55 AM.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Well, I'll be dipped.

    In all these years I never noticed that subtle but significant difference.

    Essentially what we have here is a right considered so important that it "incorporated" itself, long before the concept of incorporation was adjudicated.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.
    Don't feel bad. A LOT of people miss this. I noticed years ago that there was something off about the ACLU defending the 1st Amendment as applicable to the states but taking a pass on the 2nd. Their excuse is "Other people defend the 2nd." But there are other groups defending the 1st as well. (And lately better than the ACLU.) But I went all the way through law school, passed the bar, and never heard of the Nunn v. Georgia case even though it was referenced in D.C. vs Heller. (Come to think of it. We didn't study the Heller case at all.) I knew about Cruikshank before going to law school. I read about in the book "Library In A Book. Gun Control." I bought that book for $1.00 at a local library sale. The best $1.00 I ever spent! It's not pro or anti gun control. It just goes over the seminal cases and explains them. (As @familydog rightly pointed out, Nunn v Georgia is a state case which probably why it's not in there but considering it's referenced in D.C. v. Heller it should be. And I apologize for being snarky with him. This stuff does take a while to digest.) I need to go ahead and start my blog/vlog to cover issues like this.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I don't care. (By all means, file it under the "every other form of federal supremacy" option I offered, if that suits you better.)

    And while we're at it, the 2nd Amendment (whether "incorporated" or not) can go kick rocks, too.

    As with every other right, the right to keep and bear arms should not ever be regarded as contingent upon what the Constitution does or does not say (or, more precisely, whatever the feds choose to say at any given moment about what the Constitution does or does not say, since that is really what it comes down to in actual practice). That's exactly what the anti-federalists tried to warn people about. And now, here we are, thirsting over a pleasing result[1] that should never have been left up to the feds to decree for all the states in the first place. ("All eggs, meet basket. Basket, all eggs ... What's that? You're already acquainted? You've known each other since 1788? Well, I'll be damned ...")



    [1] And it is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.
    And I don't care that you don't care. How about that? Yeah...I get it. You'd rather the federal government not exist. I'd rather my individual rights not be brutalized by federal or state government. It's kind of like how I feel about corporations. They are bastardized state created entities that got empowered by the 14th amendment. (The amendment to guarantee rights of slaves has been used to guarantee rights of a made up life form. Imagine that?) Since corporations do exist I have zero qualms about using anti-trust law, or any other law created by the same government entity that NEVER should have created modern corporations, to reign them in. And yep. I'm sure anti-trust law has been abused. (Again.....corporations should not even exist as they do). I have yet to see any limitation put on states by the 2nd amendment that in any way bothers me. But that's just me. If you have an example than by all means share it.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Yes. Or close enough, anyway.

    But that is not my reason for thinking that gun rights should not be a federal issue.

    No - not so long as membership in such a community is voluntary, and that community does not seek to enforce control over any other property not their own (or not contractually encumbered by them).
    So by your logic (which I agree with to some extent), if this voluntary community allows members to own slaves (as did the southern states) and it acts by force to return those slaves to their "owners" (i.e. fugitive slave laws) then it doesn't count as a voluntary community. Which is what existed prior to the civil war including under the Articles of Confederation.

    An explicit "guarantee" of gun rights was not even considered necessary at that level until the former was usurped by the latter.
    And at what point do you think that usurpation happened? The civil war?

    And for good reason, as it turned out. The anti-federalists were right. Even Alexander Hamilton warned that the Bill of Rights would come to be regarded as a list of permissions granted by the federal government to "the people", rather than as a list of restrictions to be imposed upon the federal government by the states. We all know how that went. The mere fact it was sensed that an assurance from the feds that they would not interfere with gun rights (in the form of the 2nd Amendment) was, all by itself, a huge "red flag" (ha-ha). Note that no one thought it necessary to so amend the Articles of Confederation when they were established.
    LOL. What turned into a "constitutional convention" was initially just a meeting to amend the Articles of Confederation. But rather than being amended, they were scrapped. (Which is why I'm against a constitutional convention.)

    I am saying that the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the federal level is not the proper scope or venue in which to address such matters (any more than it is the proper scope or venue in which to decree whether people ought to eat their veggies).
    Japan considered an invasion of the U.S. mainland suicide because the right to own a gun was protected at the federal level as opposed to the state. Otherwise California might have disarmed its populace leaving the door open for a beachhead. That's the point of the militia clause in the 2nd amendment. The national government (federal or confederate) couldn't afford a standing army and many of the founder were wary of that anyway. The Whiskey Rebellion never should have even come up because, rather than sending government troops to fight the Indians on the frontier, George Washington should have left that to the local militia and offered to train them, for a fee, if they felt they needed it.

    That is for state-level constitutions (or even more localized instruments) - and prior to the Constitution, that is where it was dealt with. As far as I know, every state had constitutional sureties for gun rights in some form or another. And if any did not, then that should have been a problem for them to fix for themselves (or not), and not a problem for the feds to "solve" for them (while forcibly imposing that "solution" on them and every other state, as well).
    Leaving part of the country unsecure because some politicians felt the need to take away gun rights was deemed unacceptable as a whole. I agree with that assessment. So did the Georgia Supreme Court back in the 1800s.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 06-24-2022 at 10:18 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yeah...I get it. You'd rather the federal government not exist.
    My druthers regarding the existence of the feds haven't got anything to do with it. They exist. So long as they continue to exist, their power and purview ought to be limited strictly to the minimum necessary for the maintenance of a union of otherwise sovereign states (for purposes of mutual defense and the like), and nothing more. That does not include dictating what gun rights the citizens of member states are or are not permitted to exercise.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I have yet to see any limitation put on states by the 2nd amendment that in any way bothers me. But that's just me. If you have an example than by all means share it.
    It is not the "limitations put on states by the 2nd Amendment" that bother me. As I said previously:

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    [1] [This ruling] is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.
    It is the source of those limitations and the manner of their imposition to which I object. Siccing an 800-pound gorilla on a 500-pound gorilla is all well and good, until that 800-pound gorilla turns his attention to you. And that leads to yet another serious problem with granting purview over gun rights to the federal government: to quote Shakespeare, the 2nd Amendment "is a custom more honored in the breach than the observance". While the feds are busy squashing New York's shenanigans (for the time being, and until judges can be replaced and/or the courts can be packed), federal abrogations of gun rights such as the National Firearms Act (to name just one of many) hum right along, placidly undisturbed by it all. And those are imposed upon everyone, not just New Yorkers. In fact, many states have no laws like those like those SCOTUS just overruled for New York, and there is no reasonable prospect that those states would have implemented any such laws in the foreseeable future - so as far as those states are concerned, this SCOTUS ruling might as well not have happened at all, for all the difference it will make.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    My druthers regarding the existence of the feds haven't got anything to do with it. They exist. So long as they continue to exist, their power and purview ought to be limited strictly to the minimum necessary for the maintenance of a union of otherwise sovereign states (for purposes of mutual defense and the like), and nothing more. That does not include dictating what gun rights the citizens of member states are or are not permitted to exercise.
    Okay. Well part of that existence is the second amendment and I'm happy for that even though you are not. And states cannot effectively execute the "purposes of mutual defense" (as YOU put it), without either A) a large standing army or B) an individual right to bear arms. It simply cannot happen. So...which would you rather have? The 80000000 ton gorilla that is the military industrial complex that we all see going around the world brutalizing everyone, or the "800 pound gorilla", as you described it, pissing on poor New York's ability to brutalize it's own citizens? Take your pick.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    An explicit "guarantee" of gun rights was not even considered necessary at that level until the former was usurped by the latter.
    And at what point do you think that usurpation happened? The civil war?
    What on earth does the Civil War have to do with it?

    I specified the point at which that usurpation happened:

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    A voluntary pact already existed between the states. The Constitution was originally intended to consolidate more power in the hands of fewer people.

    An explicit "guarantee" of gun rights was not even considered necessary at that level until the former was usurped by the latter.
    "A voluntary pact [i.e., the Articles of Confederation] already existed between the states." This is "the former" thing to which I referred.

    "The Constitution was originally intended to consolidate more power in the hands of fewer people." This is "the latter" thing to which I referred.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    LOL. What turned into a "constitutional convention" was initially just a meeting to amend the Articles of Confederation. But rather than being amended, they were scrapped. (Which is why I'm against a constitutional convention.)
    That was my point. A confederal assurance of gun rights was not considered needful when the Articles were ratified - but a federal assurance of gun rights was considered needful when the Constitution was ratified. The Bill of Rights was a sop to the anti-federalists who feared the usurpation and centralization of power the Constitution represented. They should have heeded their misgivings for exactly the same reasons you (and I) are against a constitutional convention today.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    No age restriction:

    SCOTUS Guns Down Gun Control - Razör Rants
    The salt must FLOWWWWWWWW
    https://odysee.com/@RazorFist:1/scot...l-raz%C3%B6r:7
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-24-2022 at 01:37 PM.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    That was my point. A confederal assurance of gun rights was not considered needful when the Articles were ratified - but a federal assurance of gun rights was considered needful when the Constitution was ratified. The Bill of Rights was a sop to the anti-federalists who feared the usurpation and centralization of power the Constitution represented. They should have heeded their misgivings for exactly the same reasons you (and I) are against a constitutional convention today.
    The constitution was ratified as a result of the problems that led to Shays' rebellion. You mentioned "mutual protection" among the states. (I may have your wording off, but I've got the thought.) Shays' was an unpaid Revolutionary War veteran. His local state was still oppressing him and his fellow vets with taxes, he was getting no debt relief from the merchants, and he and other vets were basically watermelon seeds that were being squeezed to hard. In short, the articles of confederation were a provable failure. Yep. There's a lot I don't like about the current system as well. But the "mutual protection" goal that you (and I) agree is necessary for a country, be it federal or confederate, cannot happen either without an individual right to bear arms or a large central military. Over the years the right to keep and bear arms has diminished at the same time the size and scope of the federal military has increased. I don't think that's an accident.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Yes. Or close enough, anyway.

    But that is not my reason for thinking that gun rights should not be a federal issue.



    No - not so long as membership in such a community is voluntary, and that community does not seek to enforce control over any other property not their own (or not contractually encumbered by them).



    A voluntary pact already existed between the states. The Constitution was originally intended to consolidate more power in the hands of fewer people.

    An explicit "guarantee" of gun rights was not even considered necessary at that level until the former was usurped by the latter.

    And for good reason, as it turned out. The anti-federalists were right. Even Alexander Hamilton warned that the Bill of Rights would come to be regarded as a list of permissions granted by the federal government to "the people", rather than as a list of restrictions to be imposed upon the federal government by the states. We all know how that went. The mere fact it was sensed that an assurance from the feds that they would not interfere with gun rights (in the form of the 2nd Amendment) was, all by itself, a huge "red flag" (ha-ha). Note that no one thought it necessary to so amend the Articles of Confederation when they were established.



    I am saying that the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the federal level is not the proper scope or venue in which to address such matters (any more than it is the proper scope or venue in which to decree whether people ought to eat their veggies).

    That is for state-level constitutions (or even more localized instruments) - and prior to the Constitution, that is where it was dealt with. As far as I know, every state had constitutional sureties for gun rights in some form or another. And if any did not, then that should have been a problem for them to fix for themselves (or not), and not a problem for the feds to "solve" for them (while forcibly imposing that "solution" on them and every other state, as well).
    Makes sense to me. +outta rep
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  18. #45
    This article is not about this ruling (it was published over two years ago), but it is relevant to a number of things that have been raised in this thread.

    The Incorporation Doctrine Broke the Constitutional System
    https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/202...tional-system/
    Mike Maharrey (30 May 2020)

    I think centralizing power is always a net loss for liberty. So did the founding generation. This is why the framers of the Constitution emphatically rejected a proposal to give the federal government veto power over state laws. It’s also why the first Congress rejected applying some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.

    When I say this, it tends to confuse people, because, in today’s political system, the federal government vetoes state laws all the time through federal courts. And virtually every time somebody perceives that a state government has violated their rights, they run straight to federal courts to stop the offending state action.

    Despite my protests, the application of the federal Bill of Rights to the states has become a key feature of the American political system.

    As I said, I believe this will ultimately prove to be a net loss for liberty. When you turn to federal courts to protect your liberty from state actions, you’re playing a game of Russian roulette with five bullets loaded into your six-shooter. Despite a few minor victories here and there, federal courts almost always come out with opinions that expand government power, not protect individual liberty. And these expansions of government power become the law of the land across the entire United States. In a decentralized system, bad state court decisions only impact the people in that one state.

    The risk isn’t worth the reward.

    And yet here we are.

    Among friends of liberty you will find a great deal of support for using federal courts to stop states from violating individual rights. Despite my misgivings, I can understand the impulse. When we see state governments trampling rights, we want somebody to step in. The feds are more than happy to step in. Why not take advantage of their service? But if you’re going to support the enforcement of the federal Bill of Rights on state and local governments, you need to understand where this purported power comes from and its implications for the American constitutional system.

    The BIll of Rights Was Never Intended to Apply to State or Local Governments

    The application of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments was not a feature of the original constitution. It came about through a series of federal court cases based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

    A lot of people believe that the Bill of Rights always applied to state governments. This is simply not true. The Bill of Rights was never intended to bind the actions of state governments.

    The preamble to the Bill of Rights makes its purpose absolutely clear: to further restrict federal government power.

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

    The words “its powers” clearly refer back to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the Constitution’s powers as exercised through “the government”—the federal government. Notice that the word “government” is not plural.

    The preamble of the Bill of Rights makes no mention of limiting the power of state governments. The state ratifying conventions had no intention of restricting their state’s own powers. They already had state constitutions to do that job.

    This is an undebatable fact—no founding-era evidence exists that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. None.

    Doing so would have essentially created a federal veto over state laws. As I’ve already said, this idea was rejected during the framing of the Constitution. It would have allowed for a massive expansion of central government authority—the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.

    The Incorporation Doctrine

    The federal courts enforce the Bill of Rights on the states today through a legal framework known as the incorporation doctrine.

    In a nutshell, the Supreme Court invented the incorporation doctrine through the Fourteenth Amendment. It relies on a dubious legal principle called “substantive due process,” invented out of thin air by the court more than fifty years after the ratification of the amendment.

    There is some basis to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states. The operative clause of the amendment reads, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The question is: Are the provisions of the Bill of Rights included in the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges and immunities”?

    In my educated opinion, the answer is no. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was asserted over and over again both in the congressional debates and as supporters presented the amendment to the states. The civil rights act specifically enumerates the privileges and immunities that were to be protected. (The privileges and immunities listed in the Supreme Court case Corfield v. Coryell were also mentioned in debates.) They include the right to enter into contracts, own property, inherit property, travel freely, and access the courts. The act made no mention of the Bill of Rights.

    In fact, in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, the US Supreme Court rejected the idea that the privileges and immunities clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

    Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?

    We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.

    This is why the court later made up the concept of “substantive due process” to justify incorporation. The previous court had closed the door on basing incorporation on the more logical Privileges or Immunities Clause.

    I admit that there exists some evidence that undermines my view on incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. But the concept of substantive due process is every bit a product of “living breathing” constitutional interpretation as any progressive court opinion conjured up during the New Deal.

    Regardless, incorporation is now the law of the land and is ensconced in the legal system. You can try to use the federal courts to protect your rights from state governments if you choose. But you should at least understand how the idea evolved and what it has done to the constitutional system.

    Incorporation Breaks the Original Constitutional System

    The founding generation warned us over and over again about consolidating the states into a single national government. It was the greatest fear voiced by opponents of the Constitution during ratification and was a prime reason for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

    During the Massachusetts ratifying convention, delegate Fisher Ames asserted that “a consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution.” And during the Virginia ratifying convention Patrick Henry warned, “Consolidation must end in the destruction of our liberties.” He elaborated:

    When he asks my opinion of consolidation, of one power to reign over America with a strong hand, I will tell him I am persuaded of the rectitude of my honorable friend’s opinion, (Mr. Mason) that one government cannot reign over so extensive a country as this is, without absolute despotism. Compared to such a consolidation, small confederacies are little evils; though they ought to be recurred to but in case of necessity.

    Supporters of the Constitution didn’t defend consolidation. They acknowledged its danger and swore it would never happen. In Federalist,no. 32, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

    An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

    The incorporation doctrine did what Hamilton promised wouldn’t happen. It effectively obliterated state sovereignty and consolidated the state into a single national government.

    Whether legitimate or not, the incorporation doctrine made real the founders’ worst fears. Using federal courts to police the states and enforce the Bill of Rights fractured the original constitutional structure, broke the Tenth Amendment, and effectively consolidated the states to be ruled by an oligarchy of federal judges.

    You can’t simultaneously support incorporation and the original Constitution. They are hopelessly at odds.

  19. #46
    "Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?"--Will Rogers

    "All I know is what I read in the newspapers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."--Will Rogers

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You do realize that the SCOTUS later referenced Nunn v Georgia in the Hiller Case right? You SHOULD recognizes that because I freaking said it.
    Your post addressing my post did not reference Hiller.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Again, reading is fundamental. So...go ahead and make your argument why the Georgia Supreme Court was wrong to interpret the 2nd Amendment, which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, applied to the state even without the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. I'll wait.
    Like, wow, bro. You totally pwned me with your gifs. Your elite debating skills cannot be matched.

    Anyway, sorry, but one single State Supreme Court decision is irrelevant to literally anything I said.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Your post addressing my post did not reference Hiller.



    Like, wow, bro. You totally pwned me with your gifs. Your elite debating skills cannot be matched.

    Anyway, sorry, but one single State Supreme Court decision is irrelevant to literally anything I said.
    Okay. So what do you think is the relevance of the fact that Nunn v Georgia was a state supreme court decision that recognized that the 2nd amendment applied to the states?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Interesting read. But it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. The founders were careful to put the word "congress" in the first amendment and leave it out of the 2nd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    This article is not about this ruling (it was published over two years ago), but it is relevant to a number of things that have been raised in this thread.

    The Incorporation Doctrine Broke the Constitutional System
    https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/202...tional-system/
    Mike Maharrey (30 May 2020)

    I think centralizing power is always a net loss for liberty. So did the founding generation. This is why the framers of the Constitution emphatically rejected a proposal to give the federal government veto power over state laws. It’s also why the first Congress rejected applying some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.

    When I say this, it tends to confuse people, because, in today’s political system, the federal government vetoes state laws all the time through federal courts. And virtually every time somebody perceives that a state government has violated their rights, they run straight to federal courts to stop the offending state action.

    Despite my protests, the application of the federal Bill of Rights to the states has become a key feature of the American political system.

    As I said, I believe this will ultimately prove to be a net loss for liberty. When you turn to federal courts to protect your liberty from state actions, you’re playing a game of Russian roulette with five bullets loaded into your six-shooter. Despite a few minor victories here and there, federal courts almost always come out with opinions that expand government power, not protect individual liberty. And these expansions of government power become the law of the land across the entire United States. In a decentralized system, bad state court decisions only impact the people in that one state.

    The risk isn’t worth the reward.

    And yet here we are.

    Among friends of liberty you will find a great deal of support for using federal courts to stop states from violating individual rights. Despite my misgivings, I can understand the impulse. When we see state governments trampling rights, we want somebody to step in. The feds are more than happy to step in. Why not take advantage of their service? But if you’re going to support the enforcement of the federal Bill of Rights on state and local governments, you need to understand where this purported power comes from and its implications for the American constitutional system.

    The BIll of Rights Was Never Intended to Apply to State or Local Governments

    The application of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments was not a feature of the original constitution. It came about through a series of federal court cases based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

    A lot of people believe that the Bill of Rights always applied to state governments. This is simply not true. The Bill of Rights was never intended to bind the actions of state governments.

    The preamble to the Bill of Rights makes its purpose absolutely clear: to further restrict federal government power.

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

    The words “its powers” clearly refer back to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the Constitution’s powers as exercised through “the government”—the federal government. Notice that the word “government” is not plural.

    The preamble of the Bill of Rights makes no mention of limiting the power of state governments. The state ratifying conventions had no intention of restricting their state’s own powers. They already had state constitutions to do that job.

    This is an undebatable fact—no founding-era evidence exists that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. None.

    Doing so would have essentially created a federal veto over state laws. As I’ve already said, this idea was rejected during the framing of the Constitution. It would have allowed for a massive expansion of central government authority—the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.

    The Incorporation Doctrine

    The federal courts enforce the Bill of Rights on the states today through a legal framework known as the incorporation doctrine.

    In a nutshell, the Supreme Court invented the incorporation doctrine through the Fourteenth Amendment. It relies on a dubious legal principle called “substantive due process,” invented out of thin air by the court more than fifty years after the ratification of the amendment.

    There is some basis to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states. The operative clause of the amendment reads, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The question is: Are the provisions of the Bill of Rights included in the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges and immunities”?

    In my educated opinion, the answer is no. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was asserted over and over again both in the congressional debates and as supporters presented the amendment to the states. The civil rights act specifically enumerates the privileges and immunities that were to be protected. (The privileges and immunities listed in the Supreme Court case Corfield v. Coryell were also mentioned in debates.) They include the right to enter into contracts, own property, inherit property, travel freely, and access the courts. The act made no mention of the Bill of Rights.

    In fact, in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, the US Supreme Court rejected the idea that the privileges and immunities clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

    Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?

    We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.

    This is why the court later made up the concept of “substantive due process” to justify incorporation. The previous court had closed the door on basing incorporation on the more logical Privileges or Immunities Clause.

    I admit that there exists some evidence that undermines my view on incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. But the concept of substantive due process is every bit a product of “living breathing” constitutional interpretation as any progressive court opinion conjured up during the New Deal.

    Regardless, incorporation is now the law of the land and is ensconced in the legal system. You can try to use the federal courts to protect your rights from state governments if you choose. But you should at least understand how the idea evolved and what it has done to the constitutional system.

    Incorporation Breaks the Original Constitutional System

    The founding generation warned us over and over again about consolidating the states into a single national government. It was the greatest fear voiced by opponents of the Constitution during ratification and was a prime reason for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

    During the Massachusetts ratifying convention, delegate Fisher Ames asserted that “a consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution.” And during the Virginia ratifying convention Patrick Henry warned, “Consolidation must end in the destruction of our liberties.” He elaborated:

    When he asks my opinion of consolidation, of one power to reign over America with a strong hand, I will tell him I am persuaded of the rectitude of my honorable friend’s opinion, (Mr. Mason) that one government cannot reign over so extensive a country as this is, without absolute despotism. Compared to such a consolidation, small confederacies are little evils; though they ought to be recurred to but in case of necessity.

    Supporters of the Constitution didn’t defend consolidation. They acknowledged its danger and swore it would never happen. In Federalist,no. 32, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

    An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

    The incorporation doctrine did what Hamilton promised wouldn’t happen. It effectively obliterated state sovereignty and consolidated the state into a single national government.

    Whether legitimate or not, the incorporation doctrine made real the founders’ worst fears. Using federal courts to police the states and enforce the Bill of Rights fractured the original constitutional structure, broke the Tenth Amendment, and effectively consolidated the states to be ruled by an oligarchy of federal judges.

    You can’t simultaneously support incorporation and the original Constitution. They are hopelessly at odds.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Interesting read. But it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. The founders were careful to put the word "congress" in the first amendment and leave it out of the 2nd.
    I disagree, but the fact that the feds themselves have repeatedly and egregiously infringed the right to keep and bear arms - entirely regardless of what words were left out of the 2nd Amendment - is all by itself a more than adequate testament to the folly of allowing them to dictate what gun rights people should or should not be permitted to exercise.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I disagree, but the fact that the feds themselves have repeatedly and egregiously infringed the right to keep and bear arms - entirely regardless of what words were left out of the 2nd Amendment - is all by itself a more than adequate testament to the folly of allowing them to dictate what gun rights people should or should not be permitted to exercise.
    Well I'm glad the SCOTUS finally reversed course a little bit.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Well I'm glad the SCOTUS finally reversed course a little bit.
    Don't get me wrong - I love the outcome of this ruling, and I am glad it happened, too.

    But we should absolutely not be in a position where the feds get to make these calls in the first place.

    Except against themselves - if SCOTUS overturned the (federal) National Firearms Act, you'd not hear a peep of objection out of me.

    (Though I would still prefer that it happen because states said "$#@! you, no!" to the feds instead of "please with sugar?" to SCOTUS.)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-24-2022 at 04:16 PM.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    That is not what you said. You said "the rights are not GOD given" if "the BoR doesn't apply to the states".

    Thus, according to your previous statement, those rights cannot have been "GOD given" prior to the existence of the BoR and its application to the states.

    Because that is how "if A then B" works - as in "if that is not what you actually meant, then that's your problem, not mine". (See?)
    I laid out the logical result of taking a position that the BoR was not binding on the states.
    If the logic is flawed (as you point out that it is) then the position cannot stand.



    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    No it isn't. It is to deny that the feds have any business arrogating to themselves the authority to dictate to the states on behalf of "GOD" or anyone else (the former of whom I am certain is quite capable of ensuring HIS justice be done - without needing any assistance from the feds, thank you very much) concerning whatever it is the feds do or don't happen to consider to be "rights" this month.
    The feds exist and declare through the BoR that the GOD given rights exist and are binding on the states as the BoR is part of the Constitution, it is the duty of the feds to enforce those rights.
    It is the duty of ALL authorities to enforce those GOD given rights, a duty GOD places upon them.
    To declare that the rights are not applicable to the states is to declare that they do not come from GOD and he does not place a duty on the states and feds to enforce them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    No I am not. I oppose tyranny at both the state and federal levels - but I do so without making excuses or apologies for the latter just because it happens to countervail against the former once every blue moon.

    And if there are not enough people in New York who give enough of a $#@! to do something about their tyrants, then to hell with New York.



    (One might even call that "GOD's justice" ...)
    Yes you are because you are not saying to throw New York out of the union or to liberate the red counties and throw out NYC.
    You are siding with the tyrants against the citizens in the red counties and insisting that they suffer no consequences from their blatant violation of the supreme law of the land and the GOD given rights it recognizes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    To hell with the Constitution. SCOTUS and the BoR are not coming to save you.

    For each and every ruling like this one, myriad other violations of rights are routinely endorsed and perpetrated by the very same federal government, all under the rubric of the Constitution. "One step forward, a dozen steps back, one step forward, a dozen steps back, ..." is not a viable strategy for securing liberty - and if squirting Constitutional eyewash worked, then the federal government would not have become the hideously bloated behemoth that it is. (I mean, talk about "bizarre dogma" ...)
    I will leave it to GOD to Judge those who do not use every tool available to fight for the rights he gives man.
    But I wouldn't want to be in your shoes and have to tell him that you refused to use the feds when they were a potential tool to safeguard the rights of your fellowmen in even one instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    And I didn't say anything at all about "states' rights" ("dogma[tically]" or otherwise), because states don't have rights - only individual people do.
    Sure:
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.

    If you're gonna have feds at all, then the states should be the bosses of the feds, not the other way around.
    Split hairs all you want but don't deny what you said.
    You said the states should have the right to ignore the BoR and the feds because they should be the bosses and not have to abide by the compact they joined or leave it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    And the states & feds that have no problem violating the BoR can say exactly the same thing about the others. Again, same difference - separation of either side from the other reduces to the same thing (namely, one side telling the feds and the other side to go kick rocks, or vice versa). I don't particularly care which side takes its marbles and goes home - it would suffice that it happens. (In fact, I'd laugh my ass of if Texas, et al. were to end up seceding because they thought the feds were too tyrannical, and New York, et al. were to end up seceding because they thought the feds weren't tyrannical enough.)
    The point is to force the issue or force them to respect our rights.
    You claim you want to see secession but refuse to use the tool that might cause it.
    Your position is why we are where we are.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Perhaps according to the current makeup of SCOTUS. What happens when liberals hold the majority and reverse these rulings?
    Then we secede if necessary.

    Quit trying to deny the plain truth of the matter and start working to enforce it.
    Your attitude is why the left always wins and our side has so far only "compromised" away our birthright.
    If the nation splits we will be better off, if it doesn't then we will enforce our rights as best we can.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    This article is not about this ruling (it was published over two years ago), but it is relevant to a number of things that have been raised in this thread.

    The Incorporation Doctrine Broke the Constitutional System
    https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/202...tional-system/
    Mike Maharrey (30 May 2020)

    I think centralizing power is always a net loss for liberty. So did the founding generation. This is why the framers of the Constitution emphatically rejected a proposal to give the federal government veto power over state laws. It’s also why the first Congress rejected applying some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.

    When I say this, it tends to confuse people, because, in today’s political system, the federal government vetoes state laws all the time through federal courts. And virtually every time somebody perceives that a state government has violated their rights, they run straight to federal courts to stop the offending state action.

    Despite my protests, the application of the federal Bill of Rights to the states has become a key feature of the American political system.

    As I said, I believe this will ultimately prove to be a net loss for liberty. When you turn to federal courts to protect your liberty from state actions, you’re playing a game of Russian roulette with five bullets loaded into your six-shooter. Despite a few minor victories here and there, federal courts almost always come out with opinions that expand government power, not protect individual liberty. And these expansions of government power become the law of the land across the entire United States. In a decentralized system, bad state court decisions only impact the people in that one state.

    The risk isn’t worth the reward.

    And yet here we are.

    Among friends of liberty you will find a great deal of support for using federal courts to stop states from violating individual rights. Despite my misgivings, I can understand the impulse. When we see state governments trampling rights, we want somebody to step in. The feds are more than happy to step in. Why not take advantage of their service? But if you’re going to support the enforcement of the federal Bill of Rights on state and local governments, you need to understand where this purported power comes from and its implications for the American constitutional system.

    The BIll of Rights Was Never Intended to Apply to State or Local Governments

    The application of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments was not a feature of the original constitution. It came about through a series of federal court cases based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

    A lot of people believe that the Bill of Rights always applied to state governments. This is simply not true. The Bill of Rights was never intended to bind the actions of state governments.

    The preamble to the Bill of Rights makes its purpose absolutely clear: to further restrict federal government power.

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

    The words “its powers” clearly refer back to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the Constitution’s powers as exercised through “the government”—the federal government. Notice that the word “government” is not plural.

    The preamble of the Bill of Rights makes no mention of limiting the power of state governments. The state ratifying conventions had no intention of restricting their state’s own powers. They already had state constitutions to do that job.

    This is an undebatable fact—no founding-era evidence exists that Congress or the state ratifiers intended for the protections included in the Bill of Rights to bind state governments. None.

    Doing so would have essentially created a federal veto over state laws. As I’ve already said, this idea was rejected during the framing of the Constitution. It would have allowed for a massive expansion of central government authority—the exact opposite of the stated purpose of including a bill of rights.

    The Incorporation Doctrine

    The federal courts enforce the Bill of Rights on the states today through a legal framework known as the incorporation doctrine.

    In a nutshell, the Supreme Court invented the incorporation doctrine through the Fourteenth Amendment. It relies on a dubious legal principle called “substantive due process,” invented out of thin air by the court more than fifty years after the ratification of the amendment.

    There is some basis to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states. The operative clause of the amendment reads, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The question is: Are the provisions of the Bill of Rights included in the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges and immunities”?

    In my educated opinion, the answer is no. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was asserted over and over again both in the congressional debates and as supporters presented the amendment to the states. The civil rights act specifically enumerates the privileges and immunities that were to be protected. (The privileges and immunities listed in the Supreme Court case Corfield v. Coryell were also mentioned in debates.) They include the right to enter into contracts, own property, inherit property, travel freely, and access the courts. The act made no mention of the Bill of Rights.

    In fact, in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, the US Supreme Court rejected the idea that the privileges and immunities clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

    Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?

    We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.

    This is why the court later made up the concept of “substantive due process” to justify incorporation. The previous court had closed the door on basing incorporation on the more logical Privileges or Immunities Clause.

    I admit that there exists some evidence that undermines my view on incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. But the concept of substantive due process is every bit a product of “living breathing” constitutional interpretation as any progressive court opinion conjured up during the New Deal.

    Regardless, incorporation is now the law of the land and is ensconced in the legal system. You can try to use the federal courts to protect your rights from state governments if you choose. But you should at least understand how the idea evolved and what it has done to the constitutional system.

    Incorporation Breaks the Original Constitutional System

    The founding generation warned us over and over again about consolidating the states into a single national government. It was the greatest fear voiced by opponents of the Constitution during ratification and was a prime reason for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

    During the Massachusetts ratifying convention, delegate Fisher Ames asserted that “a consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution.” And during the Virginia ratifying convention Patrick Henry warned, “Consolidation must end in the destruction of our liberties.” He elaborated:

    When he asks my opinion of consolidation, of one power to reign over America with a strong hand, I will tell him I am persuaded of the rectitude of my honorable friend’s opinion, (Mr. Mason) that one government cannot reign over so extensive a country as this is, without absolute despotism. Compared to such a consolidation, small confederacies are little evils; though they ought to be recurred to but in case of necessity.

    Supporters of the Constitution didn’t defend consolidation. They acknowledged its danger and swore it would never happen. In Federalist,no. 32, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

    An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.

    The incorporation doctrine did what Hamilton promised wouldn’t happen. It effectively obliterated state sovereignty and consolidated the state into a single national government.

    Whether legitimate or not, the incorporation doctrine made real the founders’ worst fears. Using federal courts to police the states and enforce the Bill of Rights fractured the original constitutional structure, broke the Tenth Amendment, and effectively consolidated the states to be ruled by an oligarchy of federal judges.

    You can’t simultaneously support incorporation and the original Constitution. They are hopelessly at odds.
    BUNK.

    Is the BoR part of the Constitution or not? (Yes it is)

    A6S2

    This Constitution... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Well, I'll be dipped.

    In all these years I never noticed that subtle but significant difference.

    Essentially what we have here is a right considered so important that it "incorporated" itself, long before the concept of incorporation was adjudicated.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.
    It never had to be "Incorporated" beyond being a Constitutional Amendment.
    A6S2 "Incorporates" the BoR. (With the possible exception of all or part of the 1stA since it specifies "Congress shall make no law" at the beginning)
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    I just wish we can all live together happily, until that time, I can surely see that some people in some places would feel the need to be protected. Where I live nothing ever really happens so I really see no need for carrying a weapon. And it's not allowed here either... Doesn't stop the criminals from having them, but they tend to shoot each other for the most part.

    I'm happy that the SC looks at the 2nd for what it says, not what they consider it should be today. That's encouraging. Why does that matter to me ? Well, the outlook on European stability isn't that great. At least, that's my perception.
    Perfect example of why gun control laws do not work.

  33. #58
    Would be nice to get a mandate this mandate that executive order this executive order that, pronoun this pronoun that, BS ruling to eliminate face masks, injected poisons, and other liberty effecting issues.

  34. #59
    Second Rule of Gun Safety: Never depend on the government to prevent government from taking your guns.


    Libertarian Party Mises Caucus
    "The libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party."

    Platform · Our Actions

    Mises PAC
    (Libertarian Party membership not required)

    #TakeHumanAction · Donate · Merchandise


    HOME · Facebook · Twitter · YouTube

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would make NYC a slighty better place to live with this ruling?
    Broken clock and all.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. #DraftJaniceRogersBrown for #SCOTUS
    By groverblue in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2016, 06:06 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-16-2014, 10:54 PM
  3. SCOTUS strikes down DOMA
    By Carlybee in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 06-30-2013, 03:28 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 06:57 PM
  5. The Empire Strikes? Bring it on already with the public sector strikes!
    By Live_Free_Or_Die in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

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