Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/california ... s-includes-right-acquire-arms/
Published: May 16, 2016
Author: Awr Hawkins
Post Date: 2016-05-16 22:55:10 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 68126
Comments: 164
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that the right to bear arms has historically included the right to acquire them, and remanded the case of Teixeira v. County of Alameda to the lower court.
Teixeira revolves around Alameda County zoning rules for incorporated areas that not only require a gun store owner to obtain requisite local, state, and federal permits for the business, but also make sure “the proposed location of the business is not within five hundred feet of a ‘[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served.'”
Teixeira revolves around Alameda County zoning rules for incorporated areas that not only require a gun store owner to obtain requisite local, state, and federal permits for the business, but also make sure “the proposed location of the business is not within five hundred feet of a ‘[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served.'”
After being denied the requisite county permits to open “Valley Guns and Ammo” — due to complaints of persons within 500 feet of the proposed business — Plaintiff John Teixeira contended that the “500-foot rule” was tantamount to a backdoor ban on gun stores. And while there was some question over the exact distance between the proposed store and some of those who complained, the issue for Teixeira turned on the right of due process and other rights protected by the Second Amendment.
Teixeira challenged Alameda County’s decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and lost. He then appealed the case to the 9th Circuit Court, where the ruling has remanded the case to the lower court.
In summarizing the latest ruling, the court pointed to the Ninth Circuit’s position that Alameda County “had offered nothing to undermine the panel’s conclusion that the right to purchase and to sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms.”
Writing in the Majority Opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain emphasized, “Our forefathers recognized that the prohibition of commerce in firearms worked to undermine the right to keep and to bear arms.”
O’Scannlain also pointed to the recognition of the importance of buying and selling firearms from the time of the English Bill of Rights (1689) to founding of the United States.
Regarding the era in which the United States was founded, O’Scannlain explained that the states which ratified that Second Amendment did so believing they were not simply protecting a right to keep and bear arms but to buy and sell them as well. He wrote:
(1 image)The historical record indicates that Americans continued to believe that such right included the freedom to purchase and to sell weapons. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson noted that “[o]ur citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-104) not displayed.
.
.
.
I don't quote court opinions, as they prove nothing. ---- I cited our Constitution, [Art VI] which it's obvious you hate.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).
Court opinions show what the law is, as opposed to what tpaine wants it to be.
As for the Bill of Rights, here is another court opinion, there are lots and lots and lots of them.
Stevenson v Lewis, 384 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2004)
The vicinage clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused "the right to a . . . jury of the . . . district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law." U.S. Const. amend. VI. At the time of its adoption, the Sixth Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the federal government and therefore only to federal prosecutions. Cf. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247, 250-51, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833). However, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause extended certain rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to protection against state action. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147-48, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968). Not all of the rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment were incorporated; rather, only those rights that are "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" or "essential to a fair trial" apply to the states. Id. at 148-49, 88 S.Ct. 1444.The Supreme Court has not decided whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Sixth Amendment's vicinage right. Neither have we. The only circuits to squarely address the issue have concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend federal vicinage protection to the states. See Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344, 345-46 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593, 594-96 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 320-26 (3rd Cir. 1980). Most state courts to address the issue have likewise held that the vicinage clause does not apply to the states.
What is obvious is that you do not understand Article VI any better than you understand the rest of the Constitution.
I quoted court opinions about the Supremacy Clause and it is obvious you hate the truth.
The Supremacy Clause pertains to a conflict of laws. The the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the States, there was no conflict between the inapplicable Bill of Rights and any State laws.
The members of the union are the States (Art. 8). The States ratified the amendments called the Bill of Rights to place clear restraints on the powers of the Federal government. Amendments to the Federal charter, limiting the powers of the Federal government, do not apply to the States. The Bill of Rights limits and restrains Federal power, it does not contain any grant or authorization of Federal power.
You can keep quoting the Supremacy Clause, but in the context of the original Bill of Rights and State law, it did not do anything, as it created no conflict of laws. When the First Amendment says, "Congress shall pass no law," it speaks to the Federal Congress only. That is why 225 years of American court opinions unanimously say you are full of shit and do not know what you are talking about.
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1378 (2015), Opinion of the Court by Scalia, J.
Idiot tpaine thinking he is responding to nolu chan:
[SCALIA] The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads:“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.”
It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision:
[tpaine #90] A "rule of decision"? --- Who in hell made up that OPINION? And why should I care?
[nc] Antonin Scalia "made up that Opinion," and you should care because he did it as an Associate Justice writing a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme court.
[SCALIA] Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws.[tpaine #90] You are paraphrasing the words as written to make another OPINION, --- You really can't help yourself, can you....
[nc] Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.
[SCALIA] ---- It instructs courts what to do when state and federal law clash, but is silent regarding who may enforce federal laws in court, and in what circumstances they may do so.[tpaine #90] You're simply making up more opinions on what the supremacy clause means. -- Its apparent you can't stop this inane form of argument.
[nc] Justice Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to what the supremacy clause means. It speaks loudly of your intellect that you find his form of argument to be inane.
#106. To: nolu chan (#105)
Get lost... -- Or continue to make a punk fool of yourself. -- I'm indifferent to your foul idiocies.
What is obvious is that you do not understand Article VI any better than you understand the rest of the Constitution.
No, it's obvious that you will continue to insist in making a fool of yourself, repeating opinions that prove nothing.
Continue if you must, and I will continue to comment and to laugh at your foolish behavior.
---- I cited our Constitution, [Art VI] which it's obvious you hate.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
Yep --- Within the bounds of Constitutional restraints, which restraints include Art VI.. --- Thus, if a State law conflicts with the 2nd Amendment, -- the courts must decide on the supremacy of the Constitution.
#107. To: nolu chan (#105)
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three- fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them
AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251
Nunn vs. The State of Georgia
The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, that there was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States.
#108. To: tpaine (#106)
No, it's obvious that you will continue to insist in making a fool of yourself, repeating opinions that prove nothing.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).
Court opinions show what the law is, as opposed to what tpaine wwants it to be.
What is obvious is that you do not understand Article VI any better than you understand the rest of the Constitution.
I quoted court opinions about the Supremacy Clause and it is obvious you hate the truth.
The Supremacy Clause pertains to a conflict of laws. The the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the States, there was no conflict between the inapplicable Bill of Rights and any State laws.
The members of the union are the States (Art. 8). The States ratified the amendments called the Bill of Rights to place clear restraints on the powers of the Federal government. Amendments to the Federal charter, limiting the powers of the Federal government, do not apply to the States. The Bill of Rights limits and restrains Federal power, it does not contain any grant or authorization of Federal power.
You can keep quoting the Supremacy Clause, but in the context of the original Bill of Rights and State law, it did not do anything, as it created no conflict of laws. When the First Amendment says, "Congress shall pass no law," it speaks to the Federal Congress only. That is why 225 years of American court opinions unanimously say you are full of shit and do not know what you are talking about.
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1378 (2015), Opinion of the Court by Scalia, J.
Idiot tpaine thinking he is responding to nolu chan:
[SCALIA] The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads:[tpaine #90] A "rule of decision"? --- Who in hell made up that OPINION? And why should I care?“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.”
It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision:
[nc] Antonin Scalia "made up that Opinion," and you should care because he did it as an Associate Justice writing a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme court.
[SCALIA] Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws.[tpaine #90] You are paraphrasing the words as written to make another OPINION, --- You really can't help yourself, can you....
[nc] Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.
[SCALIA] ---- It instructs courts what to do when state and federal law clash, but is silent regarding who may enforce federal laws in court, and in what circumstances they may do so.[tpaine #90] You're simply making up more opinions on what the supremacy clause means. -- Its apparent you can't stop this inane form of argument.
[nc] Justice Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to what the supremacy clause means. It speaks loudly of your intellect that you find his form of argument to be inane.
As for the Bill of Rights, here is another court opinion, there are lots and lots and lots of them.
Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015)
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
#109. To: tpaine (#107)
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted themAMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251
Nunn vs. The State of Georgia
The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States.
Hey shithead, link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States."
And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void.
I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser.
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833)
Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html
U.S. Supreme CourtBarron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Syllabus
The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States.
[...]
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.
[...]
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.
If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States.
[...]
The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation.
The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States.
There is no doubt about what Barron said.
Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015)
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
#110. To: nolu chan (#108)
When the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government in Barron v. City of Baltimore, -- it eventually became necessary to enact the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Needless to say, the property involved includes arms, and the liberty involves the right to bear arms, without infringements by ANY level of government.
#111. To: nolu chan, gatlin, y'all (#109)
Ah shit, not another "copie and pastie" from you ...A sure sign a poster is a mentally ill dimwitted retard .... This is a scientific fact. It has been proven 100% accurate. People who do this are officially categorized as mentally ill dimwitted retards. What is it?
It's posting a link to some web site, without anything supporting or illuminating the poster's position. A variation on this deranged type of posting are posts that contain nothing but personal attacks and name calling, lacking any substance and failing to actually promote critical thinking or to promote or defend a sensible and sane position. Mentally ill retards use this technique because they became exhausted trying to write something sane and sensible, or they were so proud of having finally written something that wasn't totally retarded they find themselves compelled to keep reposting it.
Why, you might ask, is this a sure sign of mentally ill retards? Because these people don't have the mental horsepower to articulate a cogent statement. They have to rely on web sites to do their speaking. Because they're mentally ill retards. 97% of mental health experts agree.
Strange but true.........
Gatlin
Gatlin just posted this rant on another thread, and it described Nolu Chan's posts on this thread so well (slightly exaggerated of course), -- I'm reposting it WITHOUT his permission...
Sorry bout that...
#112. To: tpaine (#110)
When the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government in Barron v. City of Baltimore, -- it eventually became necessary to enact the Fourteenth Amendment.The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Needless to say, the property involved includes arms, and the liberty involves the right to bear arms, without infringements by ANY level of government.
What a load of horseshit.
The Supreme Court never interpreted the first eight amendments to apply to the States, and Barron was in 1833.
The 14th Amendment was a power grab in the post-Civil War era. That power grab has continued until the the Federal government can tell the girls to shower with the boys, and the boys to shower with the girls, and you approve of the power grab.
As Justice Harlan said in his opinion in Duncan v. Lousiana,
I believe I am correct in saying that every member of the Court for at least the last 135 years has agreed that our Founders did not consider the requirements of the Bill of Rights so fundamental that they should operate directly against the States.[2] They were wont to believe rather that the security of liberty in America rested primarily upon the dispersion of governmental power across a federal system.[3] The Bill of Rights was considered unnecessary by some[4] but insisted upon by others in order to curb the possibility of abuse of power by the strong central government they were creating.[5]
2. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), held that the first eight Amendments restricted only federal action.3. The locus classicus for this viewpoint is The Federalist No. 51 (Madison).
4. The Bill of Rights was opposed by Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government. See The Federalist No. 84; see generally C. Rossiter, 1787: The Grand Convention 284, 302-303.
5. In Barron v. Baltimore, supra, at 250, Chief Justice Marshall said, "These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government — not against those of the local governments."
The Civil War Amendments dramatically altered the relation of the Federal Government to the States. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes highly significant restrictions on state action. But the restrictions are couched in very broad and general terms: citizenship; privileges and immunities; due process of law; equal protection of the laws. Consequently, for 100 years this Court has been engaged in the difficult process Professor Jaffe has well called "the search for intermediate premises."[6] The question has been, Where does the Court properly look to find the specific rules that define and give content to such terms as "life, liberty, or property" and "due process of law"?
6. Jaffe, Was Brandeis an Activist? The Search for Intermediate Premises, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 986 (1967).A few members of the Court have taken the position that the intention of those who drafted the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was simply, and exclusively, to make the provisions of the first eight Amendments applicable to state action.[7] This view has never been accepted by this Court.
7. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 71 (dissenting opinion of BLACK, J.); O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 366, 370 (dissenting opinion of Harlan, J.) (1892); H. Black, "Due Process of Law," in A Constitutional Faith 23 (1968).
#113. To: nolu chan (#112)
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Needless to say, the property involved includes arms, and the liberty involves the right to bear arms, without infringements by ANY level of government.
What a load of horseshit.
That's it.. That's all you've been saying for over 100 posts, along with posting volumes of court opinions, opinions that do NOT affect our right to bear arms.
Please continue making a fool of yourself..
#114. To: tpaine (#113)
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
This is one sorry attempt to rewrite the history of your demonstrated assholery.
You have been arguing that the original Bill of Rights applied to the States before the 14th Amendment. See your #49, #107 et al.
At #107, you quoted a Georgia state court decision, Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846), that, "The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning." You concluded, "The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, that there was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States."
Of course, I have never claimed that there was no opinion that claimed the 2nd Amendment applied to the States, and you have been unable to cite any such claim by me.
I have been citing and quoting the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) since #23:
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
Your assinine and assi-ten response at #25 (and repeated thereafter) was, "This SCOTUS opinion is not definitive, and does not change the clear words of our Constitution, which has always applied to the States, except where specifically noted."
At #49 (and after) you stated, "The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance."
In #112, to which you are now nominally responding, I provided an opinion of Justice Harlan.
Opinion of Justice Harlan, 391 U.S. 171 (1968)
I believe I am correct in saying that every member of the Court for at least the last 135 years has agreed that our Founders did not consider the requirements of the Bill of Rights so fundamental that they should operate directly against the States.
That was 1968, 135 years after Barron v. Baltmore was handed down in 1833. In 2016, Barron now 183 continuous years of federal affirmation.
Of course, Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, proved that Barron v. Baltimore shows that Barron was still good law, and citable as precedent in 2016. There are thousands of federal court opinions to show Barron has been so cited since 1833.
Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG) (D.P.R. Mar 08, 2016)
B. The Doctrine of Selective IncorporationAt the time of its adoption in 1871, [sic - 1791] the Bill of Rights — and, particularly, the individual liberties secured within it — did not apply against the States. See Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250 (1833)(noting that the amendments found in the Bill of Rights "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments"); Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-552 (1833)(same). Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to protect certain individual rights from interference by the States. And thereafter, the Supreme Court began using that Amendment's Due Process Clause to "incorporate" a number of the individual liberties found in the first ten Amendments against the States
You have dissed Justice Antonin Scalia.
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1378 (2015), Opinion of the Court by Scalia, J.
Idiot tpaine #90 thinking he is responding to nolu chan:
[SCALIA] The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads:“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.”
It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision:
[tpaine #90] A "rule of decision"? --- Who in hell made up that OPINION? And why should I care?
[nc] Antonin Scalia "made up that Opinion," and you should care because he did it as an Associate Justice writing a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme court.
[SCALIA] Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws.[tpaine #90] You are paraphrasing the words as written to make another OPINION, --- You really can't help yourself, can you....
[nc] Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.
[SCALIA] ---- It instructs courts what to do when state and federal law clash, but is silent regarding who may enforce federal laws in court, and in what circumstances they may do so.[tpaine #90] You're simply making up more opinions on what the supremacy clause means. -- Its apparent you can't stop this inane form of argument.
[nc] Justice Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to what the supremacy clause means. It speaks loudly of your intellect that you find his form of argument to be inane.
You have dissed Chief Justice Marshall with a non-responsive ad hominem attack:
#14. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#13)Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court."Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about.
misterwhite
John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution.
And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms.
Can you name a single Supreme Court justice in the past 183 years, preferably who opined on the issue, whose court opinions are worthy of your respect?
Remember what you claimed and forget your attempt to rewrite history, you sorry sack of shit.
tpaine #49:
The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
#115. To: nolu chan (#114)
Today's slaughter in Orlando should make you rethink your support for States having the power to ignore our 2nd Amendment rights, -- in that 50 people died, unable to defend themselves.
But I know you won't. --- Be ashamed.
#116. To: tpaine, yukon, but i repeat myself (#115)
Today's slaughter in Orlando should make you rethink your support for States having the power to ignore our 2nd Amendment rights, -- in that 50 people died, unable to defend themselves.
Factually stating the law as it actually exists, rather than spouting ridiculous bullshit as you do, neither supports nor oppose a law.
You should rethink your support for the 14th Amendment which provides a basis for Federally enforced gay marriage and boys showering with girls, and girls showering with boys. But why should yukon/tpaine object to that?
You are obviously desperate to change the topic of conversation as you have no answers for your predicament.
Your #114 did not respond to #113.
Can you name a single Supreme Court justice in the past 183 years, preferably who opined on the issue, whose court opinions are worthy of your respect?
It appears you cannot. Not one Supreme Court justice can equal your legal expertise and meet your standards. And you can't just pick one at random because you do not know what they said.
Because of your bad case of arseface,
I understand you are trying to figure out if I shoved your bullshit down your throat or up your ass.
And you are still hiding from #40
#40. To: tpaine (#39)Read below: --- "on a presentment or indictment".Read below: --- "on a presentment or indictment"
Read again stupid: "Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,"
States use neither a presentment nor an indictment of a grand jury.
A grand jury is required for a Federal felony prosecution but not for a State prosecution. Get your head out of your ass.
Learn what a presentment is dumbshit.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
Presentment. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment is an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself, and in effect instruction that an indictment be drawn. U.S. v. Briggs, C.A.Fla., 514 F.2d 794, 804. A written accusation of crime made and returned by the grand jury upon its own initiative in the exercise of its lawful inquisitorial powers, is in the form of a bill of indictment, and in practice is signed individually by all the grand jurors who return it. See State v. Hudson, 487 Tenn.Cr.Ap S.W.2d 672, 674. See also Indictment; Information; Presenter.
States don't ignore it; -- they are empowered to use their own version of 'a presentment'.Perhaps you should take a remedial course in reading comprehension?
No, you are too ignorant of the law to know what a presentment is, and too lazy to look up a legal term you do not know. You blather on only to prove to the world that you have no clue what you are talking about.
For a major Federal crime, a grand jury is mandatory per the 5th Amendment. For a State prosecution is is not, depending on State law. Most states use an information, with no grand jury presentment or indictment involved, as no grand jury is involved.
How can that be if the 5th Amendment applies to the States?
*** C R I C K E T S *** IGNORED at #43, #51, #56, and #59.
Were you are too ignorant of the law to know what a presentment is?
Were you too lazy to look up a legal term you do not know?
Were you both too lazy and ignorant to understand the legal term presentment?
And I might as well give you another quote from a Framer of the 14th Amendment destroys your bullshit that the Bill of Rights always applied to the States.
John Bingham, co-author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 40th Cong, 1st Sess, Jan 14, 1868, pp 514-15:
We say to those States: " Before you send Representatives to this Hall you must accept the decree which twenty-three States of this Union have already solemnly ratified, declaring that no State of this Union shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."[...]
There is not an intelligent man in America but knows that this spirit and intent of the Constitution was most flagrantly violated long anterior to the rebellion, and that the Government was powerless to remedy it by law. That amendment proposes hereafter that this great wrong shall be remedied by putting a limitation expressly into the Constitution, coupled with a grant of power to enforce it by law, so that when either Ohio or South Carolina or any other State shall in its madness or its folly refuse to the gentleman or his children or to me or to mine any of the rights which pertain to American citizenship or to a common humanity, there will be redress for the wrong through the power and majesty of American law.
Which proves that tpaine is not an intelligent man.
#117. To: nolu chan (#116)
You're becoming more and more desperate, and thus amusing. Youve been trying to change the subject from guns to gay rights: --
You should rethink your support for the 14th Amendment which provides a basis for Federally enforced gay marriage and boys showering with girls, and girls showering with boys. But why should yukon/tpaine object to that?
Then you follow up with this howler:
You are obviously desperate to change the topic of conversation as you have no answers for your predicament.
I'm in no predicament, you are, --- in that you've failed to explain WHY you support the power of States to ignore our rights to bear arms.
#118. To: tpaine, yukon, but i repeat myself (#117)
You're becoming more and more desperate, and thus amusing. Youve been trying to change the subject from guns to gay rights: --
You should rethink your support for the 14th Amendment which provides a basis for Federally enforced gay marriage and boys showering with girls, and girls showering with boys. But why should yukon/tpaine object to that?
Your support for the extremely Statist 14th Amendment and its massive transfier of power to create the all-powerful Federal leviathan that can order the States to do such things is what is amusing.
Then you follow up with this howler:
You are obviously desperate to change the topic of conversation as you have no answers for your predicament.
Your inability to defend your bullshit is amusing. It is fun to watch you squirm in the manner of a dishonorable asshole.
#119. To: nolu Chan, but i repeat myself (#118)
Yes, you do, because you are desperate and obsessive.
But don't let me stop the fun. --- Continue if you please.
#120. To: tpaine (#107)
tpaine #107: "AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251. Nunn vs. The State of Georgia. The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, that there was NO opinionthat the 2nd Amendment applied to the States."Repeated at #109
misterwhite and I were having a pleasant conversation about the early gun laws largely concerning concealed weapons. I provided the opinion in Nunn v. State 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846). Nunn involved concealed weapons laws and spoke of the earlier Kentucky case, Bliss v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1822) and the Alabama case State v. Reid, (Ala. 1840), also involving state concealed weapons laws.
Nunn is harmless. It does not destroy anybody's position on whether the Bill of Rights restrained the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment. And then tpaine came along to defecate upon the thread, carryuing on an argument from another thread.
As Nunn was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron v. Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833), it could never survive legal challenge. tpaine continued to prattle on that the Supreme Court opinion made no difference and repeat that the state court opinion in Nunn destroyed by position that the Bill of Rights did not restrain the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment.
By an act of sheer good fortune, I not only have the opinion in Barron but I also have the Georgia Supreme Court opinion in State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874).
State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874)
2. The other question made in this record is a far graver one. It is insisted that the act describing the offense charged and fixing the penalty, is an infringement of the right of the citizens of this state as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and of this state. It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the United States of March 4th, 1789, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the United States. And this would seem to be the inevitable conclusion from the history of these amendments as well as from their nature and even their terms. I do not myself assent to that other limitation of the legislative powers of our general assembly insisted upon in the argument, and sometimes announced by courts, to-wit: the "higher law," which is appealed to as above even the constitution. At last, therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution.
Nunn, which was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron regarding a supposed application of the Bill of Rights to the states, was overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court 142 years ago.
#121. To: tpaine (#119)
But don't let me stop the fun. --- Continue if you please.
tpaine in review
tpaine at 20: "This SCOTUS opinion [McDonald quoting Barron v Baltimore] is not definitive, and does not change the clear words of our Constitution, which has always applied to the States, except where specifically noted."tpaine at 25: "This SCOTUS opinion [Barron v. Baltimore] is not definitive, and does not change the clear words of our Constitution, which has always applied to the States, except where specifically noted."
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
tpaine at 29: "States don't ignore it; -- they are empowered to use their own version of 'a presentment'."
tpaine attempting to explain why state do not need to use a grand jury, but demonstrating he does not know what a presentment is. As explained at #40 a presentment is an act of a grand jury. States file an information by a qualified official, needing neither an indictment nor a presentment of a grand jury. States do not need a grand jury at all, despite the Amendment 5 "presentment or indictment of a grand jury" requirement. That part of the Bill of Rights has yet to be incorporated against the states.
tpaine at 52: "During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional."
This is nonsense. Who is empowered to declare an amendment to the Constitution to be unconstitutional? How can a part of the Constitution be unconstitutional?
tpaine #90:
In which he makes an ass of himself dissing a SCOTUS opinion by Scalia, thinking he is dissing nolu chan.
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1378 (2015), Opinion of the Court by Scalia, J.
[SCALIA] The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads:“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.”
It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision:
[tpaine #90] A "rule of decision"? --- Who in hell made up that OPINION? And why should I care?
[nc] Antonin Scalia "made up that Opinion," and you should care because he did it as an Associate Justice writing a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme court.
[SCALIA] Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws.[tpaine #90] You are paraphrasing the words as written to make another OPINION, --- You really can't help yourself, can you....
[nc] Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.
[SCALIA] ---- It instructs courts what to do when state and federal law clash, but is silent regarding who may enforce federal laws in court, and in what circumstances they may do so.[tpaine #90] You're simply making up more opinions on what the supremacy clause means. -- Its apparent you can't stop this inane form of argument.
[nc] Justice Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to what the supremacy clause means. It speaks loudly of your intellect that you find his form of argument to be inane.
#122. To: nolu chan (#121)
nolu Chan, but i repeat myself (#118)
Yes, you do, because you are desperate and obsessive.
But don't let me stop the fun. --- Continue if you please.
tpaine in review ---
Good grief, ---how long do you intend to beat this dead imaginary horse?
Continue if you must, but I'm starting to fear for your sanity.
Get help...
#123. To: tpaine (#122)
Good grief, ---how long do you intend to beat this dead imaginary horse?
You have maintained that the Bill of Rights has always restrained the States since 1791. I have maintained the reality that you are full of shit, and have cited and quoted federal court opinions documenting that you are full of shit. There are many such court opinions. I intend to continue citing court opinions one day longer than continue to spew bullshit.
Good grief, ---how long do you intend to spew bullshit?
Johnston v. Earle, 245 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1957)
In Bell v. Hood, the refusal of the district court to consider this question, and its affirmance by the court of appeals3 was reversed, and the cause returned to the district court to determine whether the complaint stated a federal cause of action.
3 Bell v. Hood, 9 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 96.On its return to the district court, that court, in a very able opinion by Judge Mathes, held that no federal cause of action existed for the acts of federal officials violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.4 His reasoning is that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government,5 and not to individuals.6
4 Bell v. Hood, D.C.S.D.Cal. 1947, 71 F. Supp. 813.5 That the Fifth Amendment applies only to the acts of the federal government is settled beyond doubt. See, e.g., Spies v. People of the State of Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 166, 8 S.Ct. 21, 31 L.Ed. 80; Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 476, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L. Ed. 1048. In Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 88 L.Ed. 1408, the Court said: "* * * [F]or more than one hundred years, ever since Barron v. [Mayor and City Council of City of] Baltimore [1833], 7 Pet. 243 [ 32 U.S. 243], 8 L.Ed. 672, one of the principles of our Constitution has been that these [the Fourth and Fifth] Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 606, 16 S.Ct. 644, 650, 40 L.Ed. 819; Jack v. [State of] Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 380, 26 S.Ct. 73, 75, 50 L.Ed. 234; Twining v. [State of] New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97." 322 U.S. at page 490, 64 S.Ct. 1083.
6 Mr. Justice Black stated in Bell v. Hood that "whether federal courts can grant money recovery for damages said to have been suffered as a result of federal officers violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments" is a question which "has never been specifically decided by this Court." 327 U.S. at page 684, 66 S.Ct. 777. In Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, however, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that there was no civil action for damages based upon the Fourth Amendment against officers who had violated it seizing plaintiff's property. Speaking of the possible nonfederal liability of the offending officers, the Court said: "What remedies the defendant may have against them we need not inquire, as the 4th Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials. Its limitations reach the Federal government and its agencies." 232 U.S. at page 398, 34 S.Ct. 346.
In fine, the federal government has created no cause of action enforceable in its courts for such torts under the state law, and hence the district court here lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter.
#124. To: nolu chan (#123)
Good grief, ---how long do you intend to beat this dead imaginary horse?
Continue if you must, but I'm starting to fear for your sanity.
Get help...
You have maintained that the Bill of Rights has always restrained the States since 1791. I have maintained the reality that you are full of shit, and have cited and quoted federal court opinions documenting that you are full of shit.
Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
There are many such court opinions. I intend to continue citing court opinions one day longer than continue to spew bullshit.
Continuing only demonstrates your desperation and mental problems, so have at it.
#125. To: tpaine (#124)
Good grief, ---how long do you intend to beat this dead imaginary horse?
You have maintained that the Bill of Rights has always restrained the States since 1791. I have maintained the reality that you are full of shit, and have cited and quoted federal court opinions documenting that you are full of shit. There are many such court opinions. I intend to continue citing court opinions one day longer than continue to spew bullshit.
Good grief, ---how long do you intend to spew bullshit?
tpaine #49 The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
Time for another federal court opinion documenting almost two centuries of the federal courts unanimously saying tpaine is full of shit.
Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 3:15-cv-0335-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Mar 30, 2016)
Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).
And my pet plant has been watered for another day.
#126. To: nolu chan (#125)
Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
There are many such court opinions. I intend to continue citing court opinions one day longer than continue to spew bullshit.
Continuing only demonstrates your desperation and mental problems, so have at it.
And my pet plant has been watered for another day.
Which statement demonstrates your mental problems, poor fella.
#127. To: tpaine (#126)
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
[tpaine #126] Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
The Constitution, as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land. As construed by crackpot tpaine, not so much.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
Productions v. Fogerty, 3:14-cv-00633-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Aug 26, 2015) [John Fogerty, Creedence Clearwater Revival]
Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).
#128. To: nolu chan (#127)
tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
[tpaine #126] Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
The Constitution, as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land.
Exactly, Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights or the Constitution, -- since as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, --- and as is evident within the document itself, it is the supreme law of the land.
You've finally had a flash of sanity. Thanks.
#129. To: tpaine (#128)
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
[tpaine #126] Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
The Constitution, as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land. As construed by crackpot tpaine, not so much.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
[tpain #128] Exactly, Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights or the Constitution, -- since as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, --- and as is evident within the document itself, it is the supreme law of the land.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) for the learning impaired:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land."
Thus, when in Plessy the Court declared that separate but equal was the law of the land, that interpretation was the law of the land. And when, in Brown the Court declared that separate but equal was inherently unequal and unconstitutional, separate but equal was not the law of the land. The words of the Constitution did not change but the interpretation did, and the law of the land changed with the changing interpretation.
tpaine #49 The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
Time for another federal court opinion documenting almost two centuries of the federal courts unanimously saying tpaine is full of shit.
Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F.Supp.2d 542 (W.D. Ky. 2014)
It is true that the citizens have wide latitude to codify their traditional and moral values into law. In fact, until after the Civil War, states had almost complete power to do so, unless they encroached on a specific federal power. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250–51, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833). However, in 1868 our country adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibited state governments from infringing upon our individual rights. Over the years, the Supreme Court has said time and time again that this Amendment makes the vast majority of the original Bill of Rights and other fundamental rights applicable to state governments.In fact, the first justice to articulate this view was one of Kentucky's most famous sons, Justice John Marshall Harlan. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 558, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884) (Harlan, J., dissenting). He wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment “added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, and to the security of personal liberty, by declaring that ... ‘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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ ” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 555, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. XIV).
So now, the Constitution, including its equal protection and due process clauses, protects all of us from government action at any level, whether in the form of an act by a high official, a state employee, a legislature, or a vote of the people adopting a constitutional amendment.
#130. To: nolu chan (#129)
Nolu, you are without a doubt, one of the craziest creeps I've every had the good fortune to be entertained by, on the internet.
Please, do continue your madness..
#131. To: tpaine (#130)
[tpaine #129] Please, do continue your madness..
At your request, if that is what it takes to demonstrate you you are unable to make your case, or any case at all, other than your own dementia.
[tpaine #126] Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
The Constitution, as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land. As construed by crackpot tpaine, not so much.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
Poor, poor tpaine. There are so many Federal court opinions, and they are unanimous that you are full of shit.
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) for the learning impaired:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land."
Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Beckhoff Automation, LLC, 2:13-cv-01616-RCJ-NJK (D. Nev. May 30, 2014)
Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).
#132. To: nolu chan (#131)
tpaine #126] Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
The Constitution, as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land.
SCOTUS opinions do not change the supreme law of the land.
Poor, poor tpaine. There are so many Federal court opinions, and they are unanimous that you are full of shit.
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit.
#133. To: tpaine (#132)
[tpaine #132] SCOTUS opinions do not change the supreme law of the land.
And no bullshit you spew establishes you as the national arbiter of what the Constitution says. That authority is given to the Judiciary.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) for the learning impaired:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land."
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
And here is your daily Federal court opinion documenting that you are full of shit. Every relevant Federal court opinion ever rendered documents that you are full of shit. So many opinions and only just so many days in the year.
Unitedhealth Grp., Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., 2:14-cv-00224-RCJ-NJK (D. Nev. Dec 30, 2014)
Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).
#134. To: nolu chan (#133)
SCOTUS opinions do not change the supreme law of the land.
Poor, poor tpaine. There are so many Federal court opinions, and they are unanimous that you are full of shit.
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit.
Every relevant Federal court opinion ever rendered documents that you are full of shit.
How insane can you get? You're citing opinions to prove your opinions...
Opinions do not change our Constitution…
#135. To: tpaine (#134)
[tpaine #134]
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit. ...How insane can you get? You're citing opinions to prove your opinions...
Opinions do not change our Constitution…
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958)
It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
Poor tpaine. Here's an oldie but a goodie from SCOTUS. And it continues... the Federal opinions are unanimous that tpaine is full of shit. And all tpaine can do is take it and squeeze out another of his insane turds of thought.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875)
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.
#136. To: nolu chan (#135)
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit. ... How insane can you get? You're citing opinions to prove your opinions...
Opinions do not change our Constitution…
Poor tpaine. Here's an oldie but a goodie ----
And in reply you post more opinions. --- This is true insanity.
#137. To: tpaine (#136)
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit. ... How insane can you get? You're citing opinions to prove your opinions...Opinions do not change our Constitution…
Translation: Thank you sir! May I have another?
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958)
It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
[nolu chan #38] please explain why the States are free to try and execute people without complying with the 5th Amendment requirement for an indictment issued by a grand jury.
[tpaine #39:]
Read below: --- "on a presentment or indictment".Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[nolu chan #38] Why are States free to ignore that requirement every day?
[tpaine #39] States don't ignore it; -- they are empowered to use their own version of 'a presentment'.
[nolu chan #40]
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
Presentment. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment is an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself, and in effect instruction that an indictment be drawn. U.S. v. Briggs, C.A.Fla., 514 F.2d 794, 804. A written accusation of crime made and returned by the grand jury upon its own initiative in the exercise of its lawful inquisitorial powers, is in the form of a bill of indictment, and in practice is signed individually by all the grand jurors who return it. See State v. Hudson, 487 Tenn.Cr.Ap S.W.2d 672, 674. See also Indictment; Information; Presenter.States don't ignore it; -- they are empowered to use their own version of 'a presentment'.
Perhaps you should take a remedial course in reading comprehension?
No, you are too ignorant of the law to know what a presentment is, and too lazy to look up a legal term you do not know. You blather on only to prove to the world that you have no clue what you are talking about.
For a major Federal crime, a grand jury is mandatory per the 5th Amendment. For a State prosecution is is not, depending on State law. Most states use an information, with no grand jury presentment or indictment involved, as no grand jury is involved.
How can that be if the 5th Amendment applies to the States?
Poor tpaine. Every relevant Federal court opinion in our nation's history has said that tpaine is full of shit. For example, he has never been able to explain how full of shit he was when bloviating out his butt about an indictment or presentment of a grand jury, and an information filed against a criminal defendant by a State. tpaine claimed States used "their own version of 'a presentment', some imaginary document filed by the Easter bunny. A presentment only originates from a grand jury. When a State files an information, it does so in the absence of any grand jury.
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 584-85 (1900)
It was alleged by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, before the court which passed sentence, that the proceeding was in conflict with the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, and those grounds were before this court. The Fifth Amendment was referred to in the opinion delivered in this court, and it was held not to have been violated by the state law, although that amendment provides for an indictment by a grand jury. This decision could not have been arrived at if a citizen of the United States were entitled, by virtue of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to claim in a state court that he could not be prosecuted for an infamous crime unless upon an indictment by a grand jury. In a Federal court, no person can be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless by indictment by a grand jury, with the exceptions stated in the Fifth Amendment. Yet this amendment was held in the Hurtado case not to apply to a prosecution for murder in a state court pursuant to a state law. The claim was made in the case (and referred to in the opinion) that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment provided an additional security to the individual against oppression by the States themselves, and limited their powers to the same extent as the amendments theretofore adopted had limited the powers of the Federal Government. By holding that the conviction upon an information was valid, the court necessarily held that an indictment was not necessary; that exemption from trial for an infamous crime, excepting under an indictment, was not one of those priviliges or immunities of a citizen of the United States which a State was prohibited from abridging.
#138. To: nolu chan (#137)
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit. ... How insane can you get? You're citing opinions to prove your opinions...
Opinions do not change our Constitution…
And true to your own insane opinions, you reply with more opinions.
You're amusingly idiotic.
#139. To: tpaine (#138)
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit. ... How insane can you get? You're citing opinions to prove your opinions...Opinions do not change our Constitution…
And true to your own insane opinions, you reply with more opinions.
Translation: Thank you sir! May I have another?
Why, of course, There are so many federal court opinions and they all say tpaine is full of shit. I never even have to repeat one and can keep going for years.
You may just continue to do your impression of a Democratic congressman throwing a tantrum on the floor of the House.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958)
It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
For another federal court opinion saying tpaine is full of shit, I present:
Palko v Connecticut, 302 US 319 (1937)
The Fifth Amendment provides also that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This court has said that, in prosecutions by a state, the exemption will fail if the state elects to end it. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 211 U. S. 106, 211 U. S. 111, 211 U. S. 112. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, p. 291 U. S. 105; Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 297 U. S. 285. The Sixth Amendment calls for a jury trial in criminal cases, and the Seventh for a jury trial in civil cases at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars. This court has ruled that consistently with those amendments trial by jury may be modified by a state or abolished altogether. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581; New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, 243 U. S. 208; Wagner Electric Mfg. Co. v. Lyndon, 262 U. S. 226, 262 U. S. 232. As to the Fourth Amendment, one should refer to Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 232 U. S. 398, and, as to other provisions of the Sixth, to West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.[...]
2. The conviction of appellant is not in derogation of any privileges or immunities that belong to him as a citizen of the United States.
There is argument in his behalf that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the due process clause has been flouted by the judgment.
Maxwell v. Dow, supra, p. 176 U. S. 584, gives all the answer that is necessary.
And that is why I quoted Maxwell v. Dow at #137.
#140. To: nolu chan (#139)
Opinions do not change our Constitution…
And true to your own insane opinions, you reply with more opinions.
Why, of course, There are so many federal court opinions and they all say tpaine is full of shit. I never even have to repeat one and can keep going for years.
Fine with me, because I can also make fun of your idiocy, for years.
#141. To: tpaine (#140)
[nolu chan #139] There are so many federal court opinions and they all say tpaine is full of shit. I never even have to repeat one and can keep going for years.
[tpaine #140] Fine with me, because I can also make fun of your idiocy, for years.
Translation: Thank you, Sir! May I have another?
The number of relevant Federal court opinions is legion, and they all say tpaine is full of shit.
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
Nordyke v. King, 319 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2003)
Whether and to what extent the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a question that has intrigued many. See Felix Frankfurter, Memorandum on "Incorporation" of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 78 Harv. L.Rev. 746 (1965); Hugo Lafayette Black, A Constitutional Faith, at xvi-vii, 34-42 (1968); William J. Brennan Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States, 36 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 761 (1961); William J. Brennan Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 535 (1986); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 171-193, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Erwin N. Griswold, Due Process Problems Today in the United States, in The Fourteenth Amendment 161, 164 (Bernard Schwartz ed., 1970); Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L.J. 1193 (1992).[...]
Many Amendments of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated against the states. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968) (right to criminal jury); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) (privilege against compelled self-incrimination); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) (freedom of speech and press); Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) (nonestablishment of religion); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (right to counsel); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (exclusion of evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure). However, the entire Bill of Rights has not been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See John E. Nowak Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law 332-334 (4th ed. 1991).
#142. To: nolu chan (#141)
The number of relevant Federal court opinions is legion, and they all say tpaine is full of shit.
No, they all give opinions that apply to the case at hand, -- these opinions do NOT change the constitution.
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists, like yourself, --- to avoid compliance.
#143. To: tpaine (#142)
[nolu chan #139] There are so many federal court opinions and they all say tpaine is full of shit. I never even have to repeat one and can keep going for years.
[tpaine #140] Fine with me, because I can also make fun of your idiocy, for years.
Translation: Thank you, Sir! May I have another?
[tpaine #142] No, they all give opinions that apply to the case at hand, -- these opinions do NOT change the constitution.
tpaine hallucinates that Obergefell says only the plaintiff is entitled to same-sex marriage, and he hallucinates that Roe v. Wade says only that Jane Roe is entitled to an abortion.
The number of relevant Federal court opinions on the applicability of the original Bill of Rights is legion, and they all say tpaine is full of shit.
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
Time for yet another spanking.
Couvillier v Dillingham & Assocs, 2:14-cv-00482-RCJ-NJK (D Nev Jul 23, 2014)
Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).
#144. To: nolu chan (#143)
nolu chan #139] There are so many federal court opinions and they all say tpaine is full of shit. I never even have to repeat one and can keep going for years.
[tpaine #140] Fine with me, because I can also make fun of your idiocy, for years.
Time for yet another spanking.
Time for more making more fun of your idiotic reposts, you mean. Rant on.
#145. To: tpaine (#144)
[nolu chan #139] There are so many federal court opinions and they all say tpaine is full of shit. I never even have to repeat one and can keep going for years.
[tpaine #140] Fine with me, because I can also make fun of your idiocy, for years.
Translation: Thank you, Sir! May I have another?
[tpaine #142] No, they all give opinions that apply to the case at hand, -- these opinions do NOT change the constitution.
tpaine hallucinates that Obergefell says only the plaintiff is entitled to same-sex marriage, and he hallucinates that Roe v. Wade says only that Jane Roe is entitled to an abortion.
The number of relevant Federal court opinions on the applicability of the original Bill of Rights is legion, and they all say tpaine is full of shit.
[tpaine #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
tpaine #144 - no substantive response.
Time for yet another spanking.
MALONE v. FAYETTE COUNTY, TENN., (W.D.Tenn. 2000), 86 F. Supp.2d 797 (W.D. Tenn. 2000)
In Graham, the court held that the Fourth Amendment supplies the correct substantive standard for excessive force claims within the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865. Graham did not, however, alter the fundamental principal of constitutional law that the restrictions upon governmental power contained in the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution, standing alone, are inapplicable to the states. See Barron, for Use of Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council of City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 246, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833). See also Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 26, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). Instead, the protections of the Bill of Rights are applicable to the states only inasmuch as the rights protected in those amendments are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and thus incorporated into the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325-26, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937).
.
.
.
Comments (146 - 164) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]