SCOTUS, New York Right to Carry

[hollowoutadime]

Good final statement by attorney for New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Having listened to most of the hearing, the liberal justices didn't seem to have a good understanding of the right to self defense (or they were being coy), the State's case against was pretty weak "we should have discretion, not shall issue", and or bringing up irrelevant 1820's state laws (later to be overturned, by those states). Anyway, hopeful there will be a solid, favorable ruling.

We will see.

 

[hollowoutadime]

I must add that the argument "well it's ok to self defense in rural areas is ok (ie woods), but not OK in the town's shopping malls" was as boneheaded as it gets.

 

[Choid]

Roberts' response to that was epic.

 

[hollowoutadime]

"How many muggings take place in the forest?" Roberts asked.

 

[RUTGERS95]

"How many muggings take place in the forest?" Roberts asked.

epic

 

[RGStory]

Good final statement by attorney for New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Was disappointed that he fumbled on the sporting events and alcohol serving establishments question. Missed opportunity there. Overall, not bad. The judges were harsh on him, but obviously way more harsh on the State's Attorney. Good sign on how they will rule. Can't wait for the opinion to come out.

I love that they have started broadcasting these SCOUTUS hearings.

 

[Choid]

Even though the incorporation of the second is "settled law" under our living Constitution, it is interesting to realize that under the original meaning, plain reading of the Constitution, and even until the 14th amendment, New York had ever right in the world to have this restriction, or to have much more onerous restrictions on guns.

 

[MtnCreek]

Even though the incorporation of the second is "settled law" under our living Constitution, it is interesting to realize that under the original meaning, plain reading of the Constitution, and even of the 14th amendment, New York had ever right in the world to have this restriction, or to have much more onerous restrictions on guns.

Are you saying that original intent of A2 would allow Sates to require permitting to exercise that right?

Even Wobbly Roberts doesn't seem to be convinced.


Fletcher stood firm, telling Roberts that such an argument “assumes the conclusion.” The very question in the case, he said, is whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a handgun for self-defense without a demonstrated need to do so.

But Roberts was still skeptical. No matter what the right is, he responded, “it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment right are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/...-control-law-but-justices-mull-narrow-ruling/

 

[Choid]

Are you saying that original intent of A2 would allow Sates to require permitting to exercise that right?

Even Wobbly Roberts doesn't seem to be convinced.


Fletcher stood firm, telling Roberts that such an argument “assumes the conclusion.” The very question in the case, he said, is whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a handgun for self-defense without a demonstrated need to do so.

But Roberts was still skeptical. No matter what the right is, he responded, “it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment right are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/...-control-law-but-justices-mull-narrow-ruling/

Sure, Barron v. Baltimore, an early unanimous case written by Chief Justice Marshall, who had been Madison's deputy at the constitutional convention, established that none of the bill of rights applied to the states. Nobody really questions that. The only reason they are now applied is because of the 14th amendment which, according to current doctrine, incorporates the bill of rights to the states, but even then it took 60 years until the progressive era for judges to "find" that incorporation in the 14th amendment.

Madison tried, at the constitutional convention, to have three amendments rights apply to the states, but that was defeated. It wasn't just the Second that didn't apply, the first didn't either. For literal proof you can see that while the First prohibits the establishment of state churches, there were state established churches, as in by the states, not the federal government, for years after the ratification.

 

[david walter]

States have powers as it relates to individuals. States have rights as it relates to other states, and the federal goventment.

I think you meant "Are you saying that original intent of A2 would allow Sates to require permitting to exercise that right power?"

 

[Longshot231]

Having listened to most of the hearing, the liberal justices didn't seem to have a good understanding of the right to self defense (or they were being coy), the State's case against was pretty weak "we should have discretion, not shall issue", and or bringing up irrelevant 1820's state laws (later to be overturned, by those states). Anyway, hopeful there will be a solid, favorable ruling.

They do, indeed, have an excellent understanding of the right to self defense. That's what makes them piss in their robes.

Remember that the Supreme Court doesn't wield the power of the sword or control the purse. Their only power rests with their legitimacy. Their legitimacy is weakened when the piss off the majority of the people.

They are really afraid of what the 2nd Amendment is all about. That is to stop tyranny.

So they are going to couch their questioning within the framework of "public safety." They know they will lose every time if the discussion would ever revolve around stopping and evil regime.

 

[Downzero]

Even though the incorporation of the second is "settled law" under our living Constitution, it is interesting to realize that under the original meaning, plain reading of the Constitution, and even of the 14th amendment, New York had ever right in the world to have this restriction, or to have much more onerous restrictions on guns.

This is a real head scratcher for me. Under the original meaning of the 14th Amendment (prior to the Slaughterhouse cases), the Privileges or Immunities clause would have prohibited any state from making a law that infringed on the Second Amendment rights. And there are absolutely zero cases defining the scope of the Second Amendment pre-Heller (as in holdings, not some bs dicta). As a result, even if you were correct, there would be no authority for your position, as there is no precedent on point. And there is such a brief period between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Slaughterhouse that I'm not sure why that'd even matter.

So what's your point? That Barron v. Baltimore was good law?

Are you saying that original intent of A2 would allow Sates to require permitting to exercise that right?

Laws don't have intent; they have meaning. The concept of the "intent" of the Second Amendment is nonsensical.

 

[Choid]

This is a real head scratcher for me. Under the original meaning of the 14th Amendment (prior to the Slaughterhouse cases), the Privileges or Immunities clause would have prohibited any state from making a law that infringed on the Second Amendment rights. And there are absolutely zero cases defining the scope of the Second Amendment pre-Heller (as in holdings, not some bs dicta). As a result, even if you were correct, there would be no authority for your position, as there is no precedent on point. And there is such a brief period between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Slaughterhouse that I'm not sure why that'd even matter.

So what's your point? That Barron v. Baltimore was good law?

My point was less legal than philosophical in that people in here often argue, naively, that the original meaning (or plain reading) of the second was to make no gun restrictions possible, period, rather than to keep the federal government from doing so. So do I think Barron is good law? No, but I think Barron was good law at the time of the decision.

ETA: I think incorporation is good, less so through substantive due process. It was simply a bit of history in a place that is convinced that their rights were at their fullest in 1789. So if your question is whether I think, today, that the 2nd protects the right to carry from states, then the answer is, obviously, yes.

 

[Downzero]

My point was less legal than philosophical in that people in here often argue, naively, that the original meaning (or plain reading) of the second was to make no gun restrictions possible, period, rather than to keep the federal government from doing so. So do I think Barron is good law? No, but I think Barron was good law at the time of the decision. And as far as the incorporation of Heller, only Thomas thought that it could be incorporated in priveleges and immunities. The majority opinion incorporates it through substantive due process.

ETA: I think incorporation is good, less so through substantive due process. It was simply a bit of history in a place that is convinced that their rights were at their fullest in 1789.

The privileges "or" immunities and privileges "and" immunities clauses of the constitution are not the same thing. The privileges and immunities clause is not in issue here.

Obviously the original meaning of the Second Amendment wasn't to prohibit the states from restricting guns, they widely did so, and many states have or had similar provisions in their constitutions at the time. Obviously those protections weren't superfluous or redundant, and we know that states did all sorts of things that would be considered absolutely illegal now, such as have state sponsored churches. That's why I mentioned Barron v. Baltimore, because its holding is illustrative of your point, that in 1830, nobody who mattered thought the bill of rights constrained the states, but the nuance is that there were other legal protections to prohibit states from infringing on gun rights just as the federal government was constrained by the bill of rights.

The reason Thomas was the only one who thought privileges or immunities mattered was because of the Slaughterhouse cases and the Court's general unwillingness to overturn their own erroneous ruling from the 1880s. Thomas wouldn't join a substantive due process incorporation opinion because even acknowledging the doctrine grants legitimacy to the abortion cases in a way Thomas will never join. Read any of his other opinions on substantive due process and this will make sense; it requires context that you won't find in McDonald. But you're moving the goalpost here. Clearly the people who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment and the public who supported them thought that the privileges or immunities clause would fully incorporate the bill of rights. It was only when the Supreme Court refused to so hold that the direction of history changed.

The bill of rights was ratified in 1791 btw.

 

[Choid]

Obviously the original meaning of the Second Amendment wasn't to prohibit the states from restricting guns, they widely did so, and many states have or had similar provisions in their constitutions at the time. Obviously those protections weren't superfluous or redundant, and we know that states did all sorts of things that would be considered absolutely illegal now, such as have state sponsored churches. That's why I mentioned Barron v. Baltimore, because its holding is illustrative of your point, that in 1830, nobody who mattered thought the bill of rights constrained the states, but the nuance is that there were other legal protections to prohibit states from infringing on gun rights just as the federal government was constrained by the bill of rights.

This was precisely what I wrote in my post that had you head scratching and was the point of what I wrote, though you fail to (importantly) note that NY is one of the few states without constitutional protections mimicikng the second, which is clearly pertinent to the case at hand. You are right (mostly) about incorporation, and I profusely apologize for an and/or mistake. But, since pedantry is the rule of the day, apparently, only 4/5 of the Bill of Rights can reasonably be incorporated through the 14th.

 

[Downzero]

This was precisely what I wrote in my post that had you head scratching and was the point of what I wrote, though you fail to (importantly) note that NY is one of the few states without constitutional protections mimicikng the second, which is clearly pertinent to the case at hand. You are right (mostly) about incorporation, and I profusely apologize for an and/or mistake. But, since pedantry is the rule of the day, apparently, only 4/5 of the Bill of Rights can reasonably be incorporated through the 14th.

I don't see how that is pertinent in 2021. In 1830 that might have been an important point. In the year 2021, short of talking about the third amendment, it's really not a meaningful criticism to say that incorporation wasn't the original meaning of the constitutional text. It absolutely was the original meaning of the fourteenth amendment to apply the BOR to the states, and it has been the courts who have refused to so hold for 140+ years. Don't confuse finality with correctness.

 

[anon]

What about the references in US v Miller to the obligation of the individual to be armed by various states and previously colonies, for the common defense? Some went so far as to specify the minimum load out and that the arms would be provided if it was proven the person could not afford them.

 

[Choid]

I don't see how that is pertinent in 2021. In 1830 that might have been an important point. In the year 2021, short of talking about the third amendment, it's really not a meaningful criticism to say that incorporation wasn't the original meaning of the constitutional text. It absolutely was the original meaning of the fourteenth amendment to apply the BOR to the states, and it has been the courts who have refused to so hold for 140+ years. Don't confuse finality with correctness.

Again, it is not pertinent in a legal sense, it is pertinent in the sense that if you have any context in this forum (see every thread about getting things back to the way the founders intended,) the general belief is that the founders thought it would not be permissible for states to regulate gun ownership and use. Since this thread was going nowhere, and everybody agreed on this case, I thought that could be a more interesting topic. But again, back to pedantry, please explain incorporation of amendments nine and ten.

 

[pmclaine]

Even though the incorporation of the second is "settled law" under our living Constitution, it is interesting to realize that under the original meaning, plain reading of the Constitution, and even of the 14th amendment, New York had ever right in the world to have this restriction, or to have much more onerous restrictions on guns.

Oh God this fuckstain again.....

"Living Constitution" indicates your outlook.

New York has the worst Constitution I have looked at. No wonder the state sucks.

Where as most of the original 13 have some version of the 2A NY was designed to be oppressive...

ARTICLE XII

DEFENSE

[Defense; militia]

Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Do you argue states rights in all cases or just choose where you would allow states to violate COTUS?

 

[pmclaine]

I don't see how that is pertinent in 2021. In 1830 that might have been an important point. In the year 2021, short of talking about the third amendment, it's really not a meaningful criticism to say that incorporation wasn't the original meaning of the constitutional text. It absolutely was the original meaning of the fourteenth amendment to apply the BOR to the states, and it has been the courts who have refused to so hold for 140+ years. Don't confuse finality with correctness.

Third Amendment is becoming more relevant as the state decides to use its National Guard for everything from bus driving kids to school to Coof testing.

They were quartered in private businesses (at cost) in DC for J6.

They may soon be living with you.

 

[Choid]

Oh God this fuckstain again.....

"Living Constitution" indicates your outlook.

New York has the worst Constitution I have looked at. No wonder the state sucks.

Where as most of the original 13 have some version of the 2A NY was designed to be oppressive...

ARTICLE XII

DEFENSE

[Defense; militia]

Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Do you argue states rights in all cases or just choose where you would allow states to violate COTUS?

That's what you got from that, retard?

 

[david walter]

No, they won’t.

I retired from the Guard. And no one will be quartered in my home against my will. Ever.

They may soon be living with you.

 

[pmclaine]

That's what you got from that, retard?

Oh God this fuckstain again.

You argue NY has the right to determmine FA accesibilty for its people......10A grounds perhaps as COTUS is Federal.

Based on NYs shitty Constitution you could be right even if it goes against all source materials of Founders intent.

My second point still holds though where else do you give primacy to the states. I think states should have primacy in many instances but not under those points that were the origins of our Revolution.

When it comes to taxation and self govt that should be local while freedoms are universal.

The Feds should live like a man with a cardboard sign at the intersection, living off a set tithe levied equally based on a states economic ability.

 

[pmclaine]

No, they won’t.

I retired from the Guard. And no one will me quartered in my home against my will. Ever.

I got two kids I might trade for some E3s, cant be worse.

 

[david walter]

The Second Amendment does not establish the God-given right to keep and bear arms, it restrains the government’s ability to restrict same.

All of the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government and now the states and lessor governments.

Those who seek to subvert the will and rights of the People discuss these things as “granted” by the Constitution. This is a ruse to enslave us.

Kipling understood:

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

- Rudyard Kipling

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

 

[Choid]

Oh God this fuckstain again.

You argue NY has the right to determmine FA accesibilty for its people......10A grounds perhaps as COTUS is Federal.

Based on NYs shitty Constitution you could be right even if it goes against all source materials of Founders intent.

My second point still holds though where else do you give primacy to the states. I think states should have primacy in many instances but not under those points that were the origins of our Revolution.

When it comes to taxation and self govt that should be local while freedoms are universal.

The Feds should live like a man with a cardboard sign at the intersection, living off a set tithe levied equally based on a states economic ability.

No, but it is exactly this kind of dumb shit that make me post it @Downzero. I don't think NY has the ability to make a law like this because things have changed. But I think the founders intended for NY to be able to make a law like this.

 

[Downzero]

Third Amendment is becoming more relevant as the state decides to use its National Guard for everything from bus driving kids to school to Coof testing.

They were quartered in private businesses (at cost) in DC for J6.

They may soon be living with you.

The third amendment is one of the few parts of the bill of rights that has never been incorporated against the states. That is why I used it as an example. Whether it would be or not, I have zero opinion, but that isn't the point.

 

[Downzero]

No, but it is exactly this kind of dumb shit that make me post it @Downzero. I don't think NY has the ability to make a law like this because things have changed. But I think the founders intended for NY to be able to make a law like this.

I think your main point is that the United States was totally different before the civil war and by extension, before the Fourteenth Amendment. And anyone who has been to law school would certainly agree with that (which is, once again, why I brought up Barron v. Baltimore. which is the Supreme Court making the same point that you are making).

 

[pmclaine]

The Second Amendment does not establish the God-given right to keep and bear arms, it restrains the government’s ability to restrict same.

All of the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government and now the states and lessor governments.

Those who seek to subvert the will and rights of the People discuss these things as “granted” by the Constitution. This is a ruse to enslave us.

Kipling understood:

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

- Rudyard Kipling

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

You point to the argument that the Founders had in even including a BOR.

They feared the appearance that it "granted rights".

It only memorialized rights that already existed and specifically prevented govt from fucking with them.

Guess who disagrees with you and I?



Shocking.



PS - You should post a trigger warning before referencing Kipling....never know what Fuckstain will be offended.

 

[Choid]

I think your main point is that the United States was totally different before the civil war and by extension, before the Fourteenth Amendment. And anyone who has been to law school would certainly agree with that (which is, once again, why I brought up Barron v. Baltimore. which is the Supreme Court making the same point that you are
making).

Yes, but for the record I brought up Barron first.

 

[pmclaine]

No, but it is exactly this kind of dumb shit that make me post it @Downzero. I don't think NY has the ability to make a law like this because things have changed. But I think the founders intended for NY to be able to make a law like this.

Oh God this fuckstain again.

The founders asked their intent to be judged under the basis of a People that had just fought a war of existence against a tyrannical opponent.

In the Federalist papers and period source statements the founders recognized the right of self defense, and intended same to the people with acknowledgement that the greatest threat was from govt.

 

[pmclaine]

The third amendment is one of the few parts of the bill of rights that has never been incorporated against the states. That is why I used it as an example. Whether it would be or not, I have zero opinion, but that isn't the point.

It was vitally important to the Founders and they were very familiar with Bostons having experienced it.

You do not permit the resistance to tyranny if you allow surveillance inside the home.

The 3a should apply to Alexa.

 

[Milf Dots]

Of the sitting SCOTUS Justices, Clarence Thomas is the prototype, and Sam Alito his apprentice. The other seven are sheeple who think they know better than the Founders and Constitution because they refuse to overturn anti-American precedent. At a minimum the anti-gun laws, the anti-American Immigration Act of 1965, the anti-American Motor Voter Act, Obamacare, and many other short sighted rulings MUST be overturned to save the Republic.

Americans are always in a losing position because the three leftist SCOTUS Justices regularly legislate from the bench- but the other four supposed 'good guys' REFUSE to overturn past rulings- which guarantees the Overton window/narrative, thus America, are always moving left.

 

[Choid]

Oh God this fuckstain again.

The founders asked their intent to be judged under the basis of a People that had just fought a war of existence against a tyrannical opponent.

In the Federalist papers and period source statements the founders recognized the right of self defense, and intended same to the people with acknowledgement that the greatest threat was from govt.

So you think NY would have been prohibited from making this law in 1792 or no?

 

[hollowoutadime]

6-3

 

[Downzero]

It was vitally important to the Founders and they were very familiar with Bostons having experienced it.

You do not permit the resistance to tyranny if you allow surveillance inside the home.

The 3a should apply to Alexa.

Yet they didn't include any provision applying it to the states in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Oversight or deliberate? I defer to you.

 

[_Windrider_]

Sure, Barron v. Baltimore, an early unanimous case written by Chief Justice Marshall, who had been Madison's deputy at the constitutional convention, established that none of the bill of rights applied to the states. Nobody really questions that. The only reason they are now applied is because of the 14th amendment which, according to current doctrine, incorporates the bill of rights to the states, but even then it took 60 years until the progressive era for judges to "find" that incorporation in the 14th amendment.

Madison tried, at the constitutional convention, to have three amendments rights apply to the states, but that was defeated. It wasn't just the Second that didn't apply, the first didn't either. For literal proof you can see that while the First prohibits the establishment of state churches, there were state established churches, as in by the states, not the federal government, for years after the ratification.

Or the fact that in the preamble it states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

 

[Downzero]

Or the fact that in the preamble it states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The preamble has no legal value. It also says no such thing, perhaps you should consider reading it.

 

[_Windrider_]

The preamble has no legal value. It also says no such thing, perhaps you should consider reading it.

you are right. My mistake. It’s article VI the supremacy clause. Oh and suck my dick from the backside. It’s possible to point out a mistake without being a condescending cockgobbler.

 

[TurboTrout]

Based on the simple language of the bill of rights, which the southern states required of the constitution to seal the deal with those first 10 rights as they knew the feds nature for oppression.

Further after reading the federalist papers

There is no debate.

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Complete-Federalist-Papers.pdf

Relying on what the government says our rights are is laughable, and defeats the point of why the founders wrote things so clearly.

“Hens be respectful and stand at attention while the honorable board of coyotes explain why you don’t have the right to not be eaten”

 

[Choid]

you are right. My mistake. It’s article VI the supremacy clause. Oh and suck my dick from the backside. It’s possible to point out a mistake without being a condescending cockgobbler.

I am sure he will answer, but I don't think the supremacy clause applies other than when state and federal laws are in conflict. W/r/t your response to me, whether the bill of rights applied to the states before the 14th amendment is absolutely settled, and the answer is no. And again my reason for bringing it up is that people often fall into a nostalgia for some prelapsarian golden age which never really happened, and I believe that is the case w/r/t the era between the constitution and civil war re rights protections.

 

[_Windrider_]

I am sure he will answer, but I don't think the supremacy clause applies other than when state and federal laws are in conflict. W/r/t your response to me, whether the bill of rights applied to the states before the 14th amendment is absolutely settled, and the answer is no. And again my reason for bringing it up is that people often fall into a nostalgia for some prelapsarian golden age which never really happened, and I believe that is the case w/r/t the era between the constitution and civil war re rights protections.

So your saying that the bill of rights didn’t matter until the 14th amendment even though they are part of the constitution and article vi says this?

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.”

not even that states can violate the constitution and what isn’t granted to the feds through the enumerated powers is therefore under state jurisdiction as reinforced by the tenth.

 

[Downzero]

So your saying that the bill of rights didn’t matter until the 14th amendment even though they are part of the constitution and article vi says this?

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.”

not even that states can violate the constitution and what isn’t granted to the feds through the enumerated powers is therefore under state jurisdiction as reinforced by the tenth.

That is what he is saying, and that is literally what SCOTUS decided in Baron v. Baltimore, in 1830.

 

[Choid]

So your saying that the bill of rights didn’t matter until the 14th amendment even though they are part of the constitution and article vi says this?

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.”

not even that states can violate the constitution and what isn’t granted to the feds through the enumerated powers is therefore under state jurisdiction as reinforced by the tenth.

I'm saying that the Bill of Rights applied only to federal laws prior to the 14th amendment. Again, as I said above, see Barron v. Baltimore decision which states it explicitly. Also see states having established churches during that period, blasphemy laws, etc. It's not even a question, but I bring it up because it is too little known, especially among conservatives.

 

[_Windrider_]

That is what he is saying, and that is literally what SCOTUS decided in Baron v. Baltimore, in 1830.

learned something new today. although that was in my non legal opinion a flawed interpretation as no state can make a law that violates the constitution and that shouldnt have even been in dispute but hey whatever. its been undermined since the ink went dry.

 

[_Windrider_]

I'm saying that the Bill of Rights applied only to federal laws prior to the 14th amendment. Again, as I said above, see Barron v. Baltimore decision which states it explicitly. Also see states having established churches during that period, blasphemy laws, etc. It's not even a question, but I bring it up because it is too little known, especially among conservatives.

i may be a republican but i am no conservative. i wish we would stop using those words interchangeably.

 

[Choid]

learned something new today. although that was in my non legal opinion a flawed interpretation as no state can make a law that violates the constitution and that shouldnt have even been in dispute but hey whatever. its been undermined since the ink went dry.

You should read Marshall's decision. He was literally there, working with Madison, during the debates over the Constitution, so he had a pretty fair idea of what was debated and how these things were understood. He called the decision "of great importance, but not much difficulty," and it was unanimous. The 14th changed everything, and undoubtedly for the better, though not without its difficulties as well.

 

[Downzero]

learned something new today. although that was in my non legal opinion a flawed interpretation as no state can make a law that violates the constitution and that shouldnt have even been in dispute but hey whatever. its been undermined since the ink went dry.

There are still at least three provisions of the bill of rights that have been never applied against the states, the third amendment in its entirety, the seventh amendment's jury trial right in cases at common law, and the grand jury clause of the fifth amendment. There may be more, but these three are the ones that come to mind without even looking it up.

 

[_Windrider_]

There are still at least three provisions of the bill of rights that have been never applied against the states, the third amendment in its entirety, the seventh amendment's jury trial right in cases at common law, and the grand jury clause of the fifth amendment. There may be more, but these three are the ones that come to mind without even looking it up.

Well let’s hope the third never has to be looked at.

 

[Downzero]

Well let’s hope the third never has to be looked at.

I don't believe it ever has as of yet, but really, all three of those ought to be incorporated against the states and should have been 150 years ago.