It is one leg of the checks and balances set up by the Founders.
Conservative think tank on the Supreme Court's upcoming DC gun ban case
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The incorporation doctrine was thought up by a handful of SC justices who didn't want freed slaves to have constitutional protections in all the states.
Hence the reason that current law will be overturned if people read the constitution and know what they are talking about, something that all 9 justices pretty much fit the description of.
Socrtease
Verified User
Actually until the 14th amendment you could have never argued that the framers intended ANY of the COnstitution to apply to the states. The Court's rulings prior to the the 14th are technically correct. The US COnstitution is ONLY meant to be a restriction on the federal government. The framers believed that if the people of the states wanted the same protections from their government they would elect men that would insure that.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
banning guns would be in violation of the supreme law of the land, so no. But legislations AND states amending the constitution for and with a specific purpose, like granting constitutional protections to blacks is not, was not, and should never have been thwarted by egotistical judges who were racist.
They were not. State legislatures, who were racists, and elected by the people violated those rights and the courts failed to "thwart" their will.
Little-Acorn
New member
Nonsense. If that were true, then the 1st amendment wouldn't be phrased the way it is, as I have pointed out.
The Constitution's principal purpose, is to take certain powers away from the States and award them to the newly-formed Federal government. It also had other purposes, such as to form that government and define its functions. And the purpose of the Bill of Rights was, to name "the most important rights" people had, and explicitly prohibit governments from interfering with them; and finally to limit the Federal government explicity to only the powers given it by the Constitution.
The idea that it was intended to only affecft the Fed govt is self-evidently silly. It does far more than that, both in its main body and in the BOR that was adopted later. To believe the Framers intended those laws to affect only the Fed, you have to believe they were bumbling fools with no real grasp of, or care about, the meaning of the words they wrote down. But in fact, most of them were extremely careful lawyers and judges who knew full well the importans ce of "slight differences such as those I pointed out between the 1st and 2nd amendments. Those differences were no mistake or oversight. The Framers meant them exactly as written.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Look, I agree with you about gun rights, but you are wrong on this. At the time of its passing, the 14th Amendment was understood to mean equal rights for blacks (which proved meaningless after the SC ruled in Plessy). It was only over time that people saw a means to use the 14th Amendment to work against Baron.
In 1884, the SC ruled in Hurtado v. California that the Grand Jury requirement does not apply to states via Due Process.
The first case came in 1897, with Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy RR Co. v. Chicago, where the SC ruled that the Due Process Clause obligates state/local governments to respect private property, and thus incorporated the "Just Compensation" Clause of the 5th Amendment.
Baron still stands as a decision because the SCOTUS has never completely overturned it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
which was why the 13th and 14th amendment were ratified, to force the states to accept, once again, the bill of rights. Something that had been done once before when any state joined the union.
Yes, it meant the rights listed in the bill of rights were enjoyed by blacks (or everyone) and that those rights could not be violated by the states.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
I don't see how that is the least bit unclear. The fact that the courts failed to apply it faithfully are not relevant.
Your point? You argued that the court was thwarting the will of the people and their legislatures. That did not happen. The court failed to thwart the will of the people and their legislatures and allowed them to violate the rights of individuals.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
By allowing them to kill their fellow citiznes? I agree. They did violate our rights.
Is anyone arguing against state laws prohibiting murder?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What about state laws encouraging murder? Your willful ignorance is bothersome.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The "right to a gun" is a throwaway "right", like the right to own a nuke, and it needn't apply to ever part of the nation. It's stupid that you libertarians froth at the mouth over this kind of shit, but ignore real violations of rights.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Nukes don't kill people... people kill people!
Let's give everyone a nuke!
Let's give everyone a nuke!
Such as?
You are the one with three posts responding to one and emotional appeals. I'd say you are frothing.
What violations do I ignore?
Should the first amendment only apply to certain areas (i.e., where there are lots of white people you feel are capable of exercising the right responsibly)?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Should the right to free speech equate to the right to have a gun?
Free speech doesn't present a safety hazard, guns do. Densely populated areas need gun protection.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what 'real' violations of rights do we, as libertarians, ignore?
And a 'throwaway' right? explain that please.