Say Anything Blog

LOL. We numbered them in order of importance…

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Rob’s right, but in effect the 2nd has been ignored so the story is actually right as well.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Actually the LA Times article is entirely correct and the writer of the article doesn’t understand the current state of the law.  Previous rulings of the Supreme Court have said that the First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.  There has never been a ruling on the Second Amendment, so it is currently an open question.

Hawk since this is not a state, but the District of Columbia I think your point doesn’t apply in this case. 

I would agree that the 14th amendment hasn’t been adjudicated in the case of the 2nd, but to me the court doesn’t create rights, but should help enforce them.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

The LA Times doesn’t even give the Ist Amendment equal status!  When was the last time they defended: “... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” where religion was concerned.

Liberals are ALL constitutional activists, picking and choosing, or simply re-writing whichever parts of the constitution that suit their cause dejour.

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

Hawk since this is not a state, but the District of Columbia I think your point doesn’t apply in this case.

I applies because once the Supreme Court rules it applies to the whole country, not just DC.

I would agree that the 14th amendment hasn’t been adjudicated in the case of the 2nd, but to me the court doesn’t create rights, but should help enforce them.

You really only believe that about the ones you agree with, or does habeas corpus and cruel and unusual punishment mean anything to you.

“Hawk since this is not a state, but the District of Columbia I think your point doesn’t apply in this case.”

Okay… so since it is a Federal district, it’s actually lacking the additional restraint of state soveriegnty.  Actually, the US Constitution rules in DC completely, and without interference from states’ rights. 

In other words, the 2nd is even more powerful there than in any State.

The Bill of Rights, all of them are fundamental rights which the Congress is absolutely prohibited from infringing in any way, shape, manner or form, not one iota. Further, not even the SCOTUS may rule to restrict, infringe, diminish or even add to those rights in any manner, absent the lawful method of amending the Constitution.

The SCOTUS may not raise the 2nd Amendment to a status equal to that of the 1st Amendment, as there is nothing in the Constitutution that makes it now even the slightest degree less important, less inviolable.

That is the straight poop, no argument by anyone can posssibly, honestly advance any other position or: 1) Langauge has no further meaning, it can be twisted out of all shape and context at the will of frail human beings. 2) The Bill of Rights, all of them will be reduced to The Bill of possible, congressional and judicial amendable rights. 3) The Constitution will be made null and void, all of it!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Exactly.  All rights are equal, but some are more equal than others in liberal’s eyes.  Some are not even rights in their eyes, or their courts—like the 9th.

Communism is evil

Hawk, not that your rather stupid constitutional analysis is correct in any way shape or form, but you’re especially wrong in this instance given that DC is not a state.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

By the way, why does it matter if the 2nd amendment has been applied to the states or not?  The founders intended the 2nd amendment to be an individual right to keep and bear arms, meaning that I have this right regardless of what my state has to say about it.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

The founders intended the 2nd amendment to be an individual right to keep and bear arms, meaning that I have this right regardless of what my state has to say about it.

The Bill of Rights forbids Congress to restrict these rights and the Bill Of Rights is the law of the entire land. There is nothing in the papers of the founding father’s I know of that indicates they intended that states could restrict them either.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

We are talking about the Bill of Rights. Habeas corpus and cruel and unusual punishment do not apply on the battlefield.  Killing someone with a bullet, rocket, knife or grenade certainly might be cruel and unusual to most.  There are no policemen on a battlefield.  Now, once a legal combatant surrenders, they are usually taken as POWs unless you are fighting JAPS—then they were tortured and/or eaten.

Communism is evil

Chief RZ: Those little guys gave our Marines and G.I.‘s gas and they were stringy! They all tasted like fish too!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

That’s not a very Christian like thing to say, is it Neiman?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

The Second Amendment does not have the same standing as the First Amendment.

The Bill of Rights are amendments to the federal constitution. They do not apply to the states unless they are ‘incorporated’ via the Fourteenth Amendment to be held against the states.

SCOTUS has said that the First Amendment has been applied to the states via the 14th, but not he Second Amendment. Nor will the DC case address that issue, because DC is a federal entity.

Here is an article on the incorporation doctrine.

And of course now Neiman will call me the ‘son of Satan’ because he thinks I don’t believe in the Second Amendment and want everyone’s guns taken away.

Or he will make up some equally stupid nonsense about me in his usual fake christian way.

Argh, try this link instead:

Incorporation doctrine.

If you are a true federalist you will realize that absent any authority the states can restrict any of the rights in the first 10 amendments.  That is why they must be incorporated by the 14th Amendment. 

It has not been adjudicated whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment.

Rob you are simply ignorant in this matter.

Succinct as usual, lestat.

Rob you are simply ignorant in this matter.

Come on now, it takes tons of study to know this stuff, or at least some concentrated study.

I bet less than 10% of everyone at SA knew about the incorporation doctrine.

And no doubt it is completely new to Neiman.

I bet less than 10% of everyone at SA knew about the incorporation doctrine.

It seems to have been accurately explained earlier in the thread and Rob ridiculed it.  That means he is ignorant.

Strangely enough, when the 14th amemdment was adopted and ratified, Congress had spoken of the right to keep and bear arms as one of the rights that was being denied to the former slaves.

AS for the item number and placement of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the fifth amendment in Congress was about the bearing of arms.  Tyhen an amendment was dropped, so it was renumberd the 4th.  When sent to the DStates the first two amendments were not ratified, so what we cal the First was actually the third and the fourth became the Second.
They all are equal, they each address concerns that were not adequately addressewd in teh Consyitution and which had been raised in the Declaration of Independence.

In the current thinking on Constitutional Rights there is only one with is absolute and cannot be infringed by any level of government.

That is the right to Abortion. It is not found in the text of the Constitution so it cannot be argued.

Look at what happens any time there is an attempt to put restrictions on it like parental notification or partial birth abortion ban. The first press release out of Planned Parenthood and Co will be screaming about an attempt to restrict your Constitutional Rights.

Maybe we can get the 2nd relagated to the same position as abortion.

Consider that the revolutary army of 1776 was made up of citizens in open revolt to the King of England at that time and without such use of private ownership of rifles and pistols our Country would not exist as it does today without a Bill of Rights nor our Constitution without private ownership of such weapons by private individuals who stood up in rebellion against an oppressive government.

If anybody is interested the gun laws we have, came from Germany of 1939, that was when the Nazi party was in power, and it was designed to take away weapons from the people so they can be controled by the government.  These laws were brought back my a Congressman after the Nermburgh trials, and was somehow put into our system.  they need to be done away with and people need to be taught how to use fireams, to respect them not fear them.

Lestat - If you are a true federalist you will realize that absent any authority the states can restrict any of the rights in the first 10 amendments.  That is why they must be incorporated by the 14th Amendment.

Question for both you and Ken McCracken. As someone who generally agrees with the ideas of federalism, I’ve never been comfortable with the Incorporation doctrine. I think that it might put too much power into the hands of nine unelected black robes, but I’ll be honest and say that I don’t know enough about the process to make an accurate determination of whether or not this is an appropriate check and balance. What say you?

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
—Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
do the math…..

disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes

I don’t like the “neither inclined” part of that quote. It leaves far too much wiggle room for those who would determine the “inclined” part.

To cut to the chase.  There is no authority that has the right to infringe on the Bill of Rights.  That was patently the intention of the Founding Fathers.  You either believe that or you don’t.  The Founding Fathers unfortunately assumed that the majority of future Citizens of the U.S. would have the stones to enforce and protect the Constitution against the onslaught of a Judiciary and a Federal Government with decidedly criminal tendencies. 
  For some of us,, it is is simple.  As long as our gun rights are not screwed with - there won’t be a war over it.  All you guys argumentation and parsing of words is truly irrelevant to the real issue.  Will you or will not, in extremis, defend your rights, by whatever means is required???  That is the only question that is truly relevant. 
  SCOTUS can decide as they please - they can’t have my weapons.  Not now - not ever.

Regards,
D. Cleveland

I’ve got a more recent quote that fits the bill:

“Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist.”

- Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning the juvenile novel _Red Planet_

That pretty much sums up the state of affairs in DC currently.  Defending yourself in DC is effectively illegal regardless of the tool used.  I recall an incident from about 20 years ago where a homeowner shot a burglar using a replica CivWar black powder revolver.  The DC cops had to dig deep to find an excuse to arrest the homeowner, but they did.  Anywhere else (except NY or Los Angeles), he would have gotten a “good job” pat on the back.

Other than my previous comments, absent McCracken’s pathological fixation and attacks on me above, concerning my Constitutional beliefs and my faith, I was perfectly content to stay out of this argument, especially on “incorporation” as it is terribly complex, because I am not by education equipped without some in-depth study to debate the nuances of “incorporation,” and I believe “incorporation” is not in harmony with the Constitution.

(1) I would suggest that if The Bill of Rights are not the rule of law in every state in the Union, then they are wholly meaningless. That is, every state can deny any or all of these rights to the citizens of the United States residing within their state. If so, then on what basis can I depend upon and appeal to the Constitution to defend my rights? None whatsoever!

(2) I find it odd that these men/women in black robes can decide which of The Bill of Rights are the rule of law in every state and which are not. I do not see such power enumerated below.

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

In all the above I do not see any right of SCOTUS to decide which Rights, specifically enumerated within the Bill of Rights, are applicable to the states and which are not.

If in an arbitrary fashion these nine justices can deny certain inalienable (unable to be taken away) rights by judicial fiat, we have in effect no longer a representative democracy, but a kleptocracy; that is, a federal government ruled by a small elite group of people.  Further, what rights they have ruled are applicable to all the nation can just as easily be denied tomorrow, thus we are denied any security to live and breath in light of these rights, and the entire Constitution is rendered meaningless thereby.

As I understand it “Incorporation” in a result of a Supreme Court Decision, not on any clause within the Constitution itself. Working on that understanding, which is subject to correction, I deny the Supreme Court the right to assume authority over the Constitution, authority not specifically enumerated in the Original Constitutional Documents.

Lastly, if the average citizen cannot read and clearly understand the rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights and enjoy the security to be able to stand upon those rights, absent the perversions of lawyers, the lowest order of life in existence, then we have lost our country, giving it over to a small ruling elite. That is how critical this issue has become, to my mind.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman.  Well put.  Our constitution was passed by 3/4ths of the states and ratified.  It took no justices to review it, nor does it now.  Most people understand that the people would not have passed the constitution if the Bill of Rights were not added.  The comments before them were to the effect of, “this is worse than under the King”.  The constitution is the law of the land.  The Supreme court can not review or pass unconstitutional any part of the constitution.  It can only review Acts or Bills passed by the US or State legislatures and decide it they think them to be unconstitutional.  The redress to their opinion would be to pass a constitutional amendment.

Communism is evil

It’s not like the Amendments are followed; not even the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

And Congress gets around this by establishing an “an independent US government agency”. In other words, an organization that gets to make “regulations” with the full power of law; something that should be illegal since the power of law rests with the people, not some unelected government bureaucracy.

So we have the FCC dictating to the people what words they can and can’t use on “the public airwaves”. It’s all a rhetorical sleight of hand that ends up destroying the very document that the government claims to uphold.

Anybody who claims to support the 1st Amendment while also supporting the FCC’s right to regulate speech has a bit of dishonest dichotomy going on there. It could be argued that Congress isn’t the one abridging the 1st Amendment, but let’s be honest - Congress set up an organization that does this for them.

Lik,

I think the incorporation doctrine should be an all-or-nothing proposition. We can’t have a situation where some amendments are deemed fit for incorporation and some are not.

We come full circle: I agree with Rob that all of those rights should be considered equally inalienable.

Many if not most states have a RKBA amendment in their state constitutions.  If the Supreme Court rules the 2nd as an individual right that will pretty much settle the question for state constitutions as well.

Besides the beauty of federalism is that states that prohibit ownership of firearms are going to see their crime rates rise proving that gun ownership is a positive thing.  And of course the good people will flee the chaos.

Of course that won’t stop the anti-gunners from lying about the cause.  Already New York blames states like Virginia for their crime problem.  How can it be that New York crime is worse than Virginia?

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

When the SCOTUS resorts to quoting foriegn law as the basis of its decisions, when a US Sen. resorts to quoting Scottish tribal traditions, (here I’m thinking of PA’s idiot sr Sen), denying the Document from whence desends his authority, we are too, too far down the road of tyranny - having converted our Founding Documents to quaint meaninglessness.  I fear we are simply going through the motions.

The body politic is beyond sick, it is dead,  the body is simply in the process of settling as it assumes room temp.

I, as a Constitutional Conserv., find this situtation heartbreaking.

- martin.musculus

Two other observations:

1) Reguardless of arguments to the contrary, since all powers not expressly given by the Constitution to States or the Federal government are reserved to the people, for the purposes of the Amendments, incorporation (or lack thereof) makes no difference.  These Rights are NEVER tended to an authority.

2) The Framers used (purposely) the ordinary language of their time, so as there to be no misconstruence of intent.  It is only when lawyers packed the two Houses, and common English had changed slightly that they felt the need to “reinterpret” the heck out of the plain meaning of the document.

An aside:
When I read legal documents, or people ask me why legal documents are so wordy,  I remember that originally lawyers were paid piece-work. That is, paid by the word.  They also had lower status than barber-dentists.  Hence the perpetual petulence and over-blown self-importance of the lawyer.

Puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?

- martin.musculus

When the SCOTUS resorts to quoting foreign law…

Be careful what you wish for here, because during the DC Gun Law hearing on Tuesday, several justices quoted the English Bill of Rights, 1689, as an example of how restrictions on gun ownership could be used by one group to oppress another.

The Supreme Court has been “resorting” to foreign law for over 200 years. Indeed, the frieze which encircles the Chamber of the Court pays homage to foreign law-givers throughout history including Hammurabi, Moses, Cicero, Confucious and Napoleon, among others.

The Framers borrowed heavily from the laws of other countries, Magna Charta, and the philosophies of men like Russeau and Hobbes in creating our own precious document.

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

pparets,
The Founders certainly did.  We certainly agree there.  Somehow, though, it seems that you equate SCOTUS w/our Founders.

If this were a valid comparision, we wouldn’t be at this point.

As for the rest, when the initiatory documents were ratified, they became the head of our law.  This makes The Federalist Papers & friends the supporting documentation in terms of intent, if that be necessary.

The English Bill of Rights 1689, while in our jurisprudical tradition, (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun…{grin}), and interesting intellectually - to see where we started from - is an unnecessary reference & invalid.  But something to be expected from a class of folk who take unnatural relish in arguing minutia - such as the meaning of what “is” is.

Actually, personally, the “why”, which is where that argument goes, is (though facinating) really superfluous.  The document says what it says, as my son at age nine said to me - unprompted - how could anyone who speaks English not see what the Amendments say… they’re written plainly enough.  Diagram the sentences!

As an aside: it seems to me that the argument of “English law says…” or any along the lines of the “ingredients” that became the bread of our Constitution is the same as quoting chess rules (parent game) to justify a move in checkers (decendent game) - or referring to cake as that “lump of flour”. 

(1st ) the child is not the parent.
(2nd) the sum is greater than the parts.

- martin.musculus

martin.M:  Well, of course, I wasn’t equating SCOTUS with our Founders, although the earliest decisions from the Marshall court were coming down before the ink had dried on the Constitution.

Your cake and checkers analogies are interesting, but my post wasn’t about how the court should  operate, but, rather, about how it does operate.

Article III, Sec 2, says in part, “arising, in law and equity, under our Constition”, a phrase which means different things to different people, but it does not prohibit the court from citing other law sources and it is doubtful that the Framers intended it to. English common law was - and still is - refered to by the SCOTUS and congress from the earliest days of our nation.

The Constitution, ingredients aside, is the foundation of our republic, but not the only source of reason. If it were, we would still be operating under the 3/5th clause.

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

pparets:

Looking at my previous post, I seem unnecessarily grumpy.  I plead pre-pain meds, (I’m in chronic pain via neuropathy), and I am glad you graciously overlooked my snotty tone.

“Your cake and checkers analogies are interesting,...”

Thank you!

but my post wasn’t about how the court should operate, but, rather, about how it does operate. “

Weellll, when you put it like that...{grin} ;}  I concede the point, sir!  Good discussion!

Sometime I’d like delve more deeply w/you into the underpinnings of this discussion.  I think we’d both spend an enjoyable “day” w/o the rancor I often encounter during these catagory of discussions.

While I agree you concerning perfected/actual vs SCOTUS, I have ths secret inner self (who forces an appearence from time-to-time{grin}), who at the heart of his make-up is adamant that if we yell loud enough, long enough these bozos, (sorry Bozo), would seek to attain nearer the perfect than the dross.

- martin.musculus

It doesn’t seem out of line to consider the philosophical underpinnings of the Founders when it comes to interpret the constitution. 

Undoubtedly English Common Law and the Magna Carta were factors in their thinking.

On the other hand nothing in non-constitutional law can overrule the plain language of the constitution.

So if the Constitution say we have the right to keep and bear arms then it doesn’t matter what the Magna Carta says.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

martin.m:  Well, we share at least one thing in common - pain: your neuropathy and my recent prostate cancer brachytherapy. I wish you well.

Would love to engage you on matters constitutional, at your leisure. I believe you can contact me by clicking SEND A PRIVATE MESSAGE.

And, since your posts are impressive, reasonable discourses - except, of course, when we disagree - I encourage you to join SAYANYTHINGBLOG by registering. 

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

I just finished reading all the cases on gun laws.  It appears that the Supreme Court has always ruled it covers individuals.  The numerous lower courts have had to rule that convicted felons (by their own behaviors) lost their right to own a firearm.  I agree with this.  It is based on behaviors.  Same case as in attempted robbery with a weapon.  The robber looses his right to hold the weapon.  He can legally be stripped of it, and put in jail.  In jail, he may not possess a weapon.

Citizens have the right to bear arms.  Period.

Communism is evil