[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta et al v County of San Diego et al, 10-56971 (9th Cir, 9 Jul 2016)
OPINION Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-87) not displayed.
our right to arms exists, and when it is ignored, INDIVIDUAL Americans will rise up to see that rights are honored. So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest. Hmmmm, why are you still free? Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it?
#89. To: nolu chan (#88) So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest. You're the poor dumb bastard around here.
#90. To: tpaine (#89)
So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest. Well, I am definitely not dumb enough to take your legal advice, and it appears no third party is either, and that leaves just you, and it appears that not even you are actually so dumb, stupid, and ignorant as to act on the demented shit you post. [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. I guess the only poor dumb bastard is tpaine, and the only people volunteering to get arrested for carrying in a designated gun free zone is the make believe people wandering about in the imagination of tpaine, acting upon his wingnuttery. You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms. And as to who decides what qualifies as an infringement, that is neither the courts nor the legislature, but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Not tpaine. Definitely, not tpaine in Kookifornia. Kentucky 1813
Chap. LXXXIX
#91. To: nolu chan (#90) Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it? I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you. Over our discussions here, it's my opinion you're probably a frustrated clown who's failed the bar exam numerous times, and are now posting out of your mom's basement, pretending to be a legal expert. Say it isn't true..
#92. To: tpaine (#91)
[nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? And I have pointed out that now your answer to "who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?" is nobody but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Indeed, if the recourse to an "opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution," this is a tacit admission that the Court is the proper authority to decide the issue. Only, in the demented world of tpaine, the Opinion of the Supreme Court only counts if it is approved by tpaine.
#93. To: nolu chan (#92) I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you. Over our discussions here, it's my opinion you're probably a frustrated clown who's failed the bar exam numerous times, and are now posting out of your mom's basement, pretending to be a legal expert. Say it isn't true.. In reply, you've made it obvious you can't answer. Poor nolu, stuck in mommy's basement, pretending to be a legal expert...
#94. To: tpaine (#93) Poor, poor, pitiful tpaine. He was forced to "admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right)." When faced with the question of who decides what is an infringement, he is pathetically lost in space. [tpaine #91] I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you.
[tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). And I have pointed out that now your answer to "who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?" is nobody but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Indeed, if the recourse to an "opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution," this is a tacit admission that the Court is the proper authority to decide the issue. However, in the demented world of tpaine, the Opinion of the Supreme Court only counts if said opinion is approved by tpaine.
#95. To: nolu chan (#94) Poor nolu, stuck in mommy's basement, pretending to be a legal expert...
Say it isn't true.. In reply, you've made it obvious you can't answer.
#96. To: tpaine (#95) [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.
#97. To: nolu chan, plays the statist game. (#96) The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.
In tpaine's world, -- the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. ---- If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. --- For example, in tpaine's world, -- President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens.
Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up, despite nolu's statist opinions.
#98. To: tpaine (#97) [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96]
In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. [tpaine #97]
Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. Keep digging that hole.
#99. To: nolu chan (#98) If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore.
Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up...
Tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. --- Keep digging that hole. What hole? -- You're now denying our 'separation of powers' concept? You must have attended the Moscow University Law School.
#100. To: tpaine (#99) [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96]
In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. [tpaine #97]
Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. [nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. tpaine #99 - psychobabble. Keep digging that hole.
#101. To: nolu chan mimics roscoe (#100) tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. --- Keep digging that hole.
What hole? -- You're now denying our 'separation of powers' concept?
You must have attended the Moscow University Law School.
psychobabble Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Congrats .
#102. To: tpaine (#101)
[tpaine #101] Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Only if you consider the below to be a single word. You have been reduced to a quivering chihuahua, hiding in a corner, sitting in a puddle of your own warm piss. I understand why a little ankle biter like you chooses to hide rather than confront the substance of your own bullshit. [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96]
In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. [tpaine #97]
Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. [nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. tpaine #99 - psychobabble. Keep digging that hole.
#103. To: nolu chan (#102) psychobabble Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Congrats .
Only if you consider the below to be a single word. Well there you go again, trying to impress non existent readers with your boring repetitive legal opinions, none of which change the Constitution. Do you really imagine anyone reads them? Dream on...
#104. To: tpaine (#103)
Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Of course they do. For the same reason some people read the comic strips or enjoy cartoons, some will enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself as you are pathetically incapable of defending your legal absurdities. And beating the shit out of you once a day is fun, like hitting a hit-me doll that keep popping back up to be hit again. It's almost therapeutic, reminding you daily what a shithead your are, and observing your helplessness in (non)response. You are definitely as entertaining as the typical TV sitcom. As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. Your assholery is on display for all to see. Anyway, to repeat my "one word" reply, which you can only piss yourself about, [tpaine #101] Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Only if you consider the below to be a single word. You have been reduced to a quivering chihuahua, hiding in a corner, sitting in a puddle of your own warm piss. I understand why a little ankle biter like you chooses to hide rather than confront the substance of your own bullshit. [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link]
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96]
In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. [tpaine #97]
Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. [nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. tpaine #99 - psychobabble. Keep digging that hole.
#105. To: nolu chan (#104) Well there you go again, trying to impress non existent readers with your boring repetitive legal opinions, none of which change the Constitution. Do you really imagine anyone reads them? Dream on...
Of course they do. For the same reason some people read the comic strips or enjoy cartoons, some will enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself as you are pathetically incapable of defending your legal absurdities.
For over 100 posts, on this thread alone, (and there are a LOT of other threads) we've exchanged opinions about legal absurdities. -- Obviously, I've defended my position, and you yours, --- But apparently , you imagine that repetitively posting our previous opinions proves you are 'the winner'. -- Instead, it proves you are delusional.
As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. Your being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. Congrats again. You're finally getting a glimmer of the principles inherent in our Constitution.
#106. To: tpaine (#105) [tpaine #105]
For over 100 posts, on this thread alone, (and there are a LOT of other threads) we've exchanged opinions about legal absurdities. -- Obviously, I've defended my position, and you yours, --- But apparently , you imagine that repetitively posting our previous opinions proves you are 'the winner'. -- Instead, it proves you are delusional. No, you have just been taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response. [nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. [tpaine #105] Your [sic] being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. This insanity is just indicative of your dementia. The Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted sure has a demented idea about how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work. And, of course, once again the U.S. Supreme Court says you are full of shit. It almost gets monotonous watching the Federal courts smack the shit out of your douchebaggery. Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1858)
[517]
#107. To: nolu chan (#106)
[nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. You're being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.
This is just indicative of your idea about how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work. And, of course, once again the U.S. Supreme Court says ----- Poor nolu, taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response. --- Opinions of the various courts, including the SCOTUS, do not change the principles inherent in our Constitution, -- checks and balances being very important among those principles.
#108. To: tpaine (#107) (Edited) [tpaine #107] You're being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos, like your mind. It is entertaining to watch your yukon bullshit and see how incapable you are at saying anything of substance. You are just batshit crazy. tpaine "COMMON SENSE" http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=104#C104
[nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. Because Benghazi! - - - - -
[tpaine #142] No, they all give opinions that apply to the case at hand, -- these opinions do NOT change the constitution. - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7
In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts. tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49
The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance. tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=72#C72
I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). tpaine posted on 2016-06-16 22:47:22 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=74#C74
-- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. tpaine posted on 2016-06-17 20:27:12 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68
nolu chan erroneously claims: -- - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732
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. - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136
Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional? - - - - -
#109. To: nolu chan (#108) Poor nolu, taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response. --- Opinions of the various courts, including the SCOTUS, do not change the principles inherent in our Constitution, -- checks and balances being very important among those principles.
Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos --- Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos".
#110. To: tpaine (#109)
Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos". Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. Your chaotic expression of your thoughts encourage laughter. Read and comprehend:
Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos, like your mind. I said your mind works in a state of chaos. You express your belief that the legal system should work in a state of chaos, like your mind. Your nonsense evokes laughter. For example: http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136
It [the Court] has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment [to the Constitution] is unconstitutional. To most sane people, it is rib tickling funny that some moron would claim that the Court could strike down a part of the Constitution as unconstitutional.
#111. To: nolu chan (#110) Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos".
Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter. Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor. I can live with that..
#112. To: tpaine (#111) [tpaine #111] Thank you, Sir! May I have another? Of course. Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States, and you are full of shit.
Valerio v. City of San Diego, CASE NO: 12-CV-1200 W (WMC) (S.D. Cal. Jun 17, 2013), page 18, n. 10
#113. To: nolu chan (#112) Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos".
Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter. Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor. I can live with that..
Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States How soon you've lost your sense of humor, and are back to your spanking fetish. You're funny, in the head.
#114. To: tpaine (#113) Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment. Medcapgroup, LLC v. Mesa Pharmacy, Inc., 2:14-cv-00674-RCJ-NJK (D. Nev. Jul 29, 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.).
#115. To: nolu chan (#114) Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos".
Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter. Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor. I can live with that..
Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States How soon you've lost your sense of humor, and are back to your spanking fetish. You're funny, in the head.
Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course. As many as needed to persuade you -- Now you're asking and answering your own questions. Poor nolu... Crazy as a bedbug.
#116. To: tpaine (#115)
Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course you may have yet another case. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment. JOHNSON v. CANNON, (M.D.Fla. 1996), 947 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
D. FIFTH AMENDMENT
#117. To: nolu chan (#116) You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do.
#118. To: tpaine (#117)
[tpaine #117] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. Henry A. v. Willden, 2:10-cv-00528-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Feb 27, 2013)
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states, Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.), and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, see U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), was not adopted until 1868. The Declaration of Rights that comprises Article I of the Nevada Constitution, which was adopted in 1864, was therefore necessary in order to impose certain restrictions upon the State of Nevada that were already imposed against the federal government under the Bill of Rights, and the Nevada Supreme Court has not interpreted the protections of the Declaration of Rights to exceed the scope of their federal counterparts. Michael W. Bowers, The Sagebrush State 43-44 (3rd ed., Univ. Nev. Press 2006); Michael W. Bowers, The Nevada State Constitution 24 (1993). It is settled law almost two centuries old. The BoR does not apply to the States. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens apply to the States via the 14th Amendment.
#119. To: nolu chan (#118) You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do.
#120. To: tpaine (#119)
[tpaine #119] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. BARTEE v. YANOFF, (E.D.Pa. 1981), 514 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. Pa. 1981), n. 3
In his brief in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiff relies primarily on the due process clause of the fifth amendment. However, plaintiff's cause of action may not be asserted directly under the fifth amendment since the fifth amendment proscribes federal conduct only, Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 490, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408 (1944); Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247, 7 Pet. 243, 247, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833). The alleged wrongdoing in this case occurred under color of state law.
#121. To: nolu chan, You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do. (#120)
#122. To: tpaine (#121)
#121. To: nolu chan, You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do. (#120) - - - - -
[tpaine #119] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp. 813 (S.D. Cal. 1947)
History is clear that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common-law rights of the people against invasion by the Federal Government. For example, the Fourth Amendment provides that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated * * *."
#123. To: nolu chan (#122) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do?
#124. To: tpaine (#123)
Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course you may have yet another case. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment.
[tpaine #119] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG) (D.P.R. Mar 08, 2016)
B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation
#125. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#124) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do?
#126. To: tpaine (#125) tpaine #24, #34, #163, #125 - non-existent handle psychosis Poor sad yukon/tpaine in the ass, trapped like the rat that he is, has nothing better do than create and to address his pathetic non-responsive posts to very long non-existent handles which will not show up in any ping list. Future responses have been consolidated onto a single thread. See: http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46857&Disp=77#C77 For examples of his psychosis using non-existent handles, see:
#76. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#75) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#24. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#23) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#34. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#33) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#163. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#162) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#125. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#124) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#127. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spamming my replies. (#126)
Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|