[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles

Title: SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
Source: Reason magazine
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 22, 2015
Author: Damon Root
Post Date: 2015-06-22 22:24:13 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 12491
Comments: 60

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent

Petition denied in Jackson v. San Francisco.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt Second Amendment supporters a major defeat today by refusing to hear an appeal filed by San Francisco gun owners seeking to overturn that city's requirement that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock." Today’s action by the Court leaves that gun control ordinance on the books.

If the facts of the San Francisco case sound familiar it is because they correspond so closely to the facts at issue in the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that decision, the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

In other words, the San Francisco gun control law would appear to be plainly unconstitutional under Heller. Yet the Court still refused to hear the case. As is customary, the justices gave no explanation for their denial of the appeal.

Two justices, however, did speak out in opposition to the Court's refusal to get involved. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, accused his colleagues of undermining Heller and failing to give the Second Amendment its constitutional due. Here's a portion of Thomas' dissent:

Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it “ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self- defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 630 (2008). Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.

The case is Jackson v. San Francisco. Justice Thomas' dissent from denial of certiorari is available here.

Damon Root is a senior editor of Reason magazine

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 53.

#13. To: tpaine (#0)

The link for the article is:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/08/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-gun

It is from June 8, 2015, the same date as the SCOTUS denial of cert.

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent

Thomas and Scalia, JJ., issued a dissent from the denial of cert.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060815zor_8m58.pdf

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

I agree with Thomas and Scalia that the Court should have taken the case. Not taking the case cannot be legally be held as any ruling on the merits. It legally means only they chose not to hear the case. The effect is to let Jackson stand in the 9th Circuit.

If the facts of the San Francisco case sound familiar it is because they correspond so closely to the facts at issue in the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that decision, the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

In other words, the San Francisco gun control law would appear to be plainly unconstitutional under Heller.

There is a great divide distinguishing Jackson from Heller.

Heller states:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

The D.C. law required a trigger lock for any firearm in the home. The San Francisco law requires the trigger lock only when not carried on the person.

The D.C. ban on home possession was total. SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional. District of Columbia banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; and provided separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun.

The San Franciso requirement that handguns handguns be stored in a locked container at home or disabled with a trigger lock when not carried on the person, was found by the 9th Circuit to not be a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right itself because it did not prevent an individual from possessing a firearm in the home.

I agree with the point argued that the trigger lock guard or lockbox should not be permitted to stand. That is not the point that was decided in Heller. If a person awakens and hears a burglar in his house, I don't think he wants to turn on a light to open a lockbox, nor does he want to fumble around with a locked weapon in the dark. If he lives alone, why does he need to lock it up to go to sleep? Ditto if no kids. The legal question is not whether the law is stupid, but whether the State has the power to issue and enforce it.

SCOTUS chose not to take up this issue at this time. There is no SCOTUS opinion. This is the summary of the 9th Circuit opinion in Jackson that SCOTUS allowed to stand. If another circuit decides differently, SCOTUS could decide to take it up at a future date.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2014/03/25/12-17803.pdf

Jackson v. San Francisco, 9th Cir 12-17803 (25 Mar 2014)

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin two San Francisco firearm and ammunition regulations in an action alleging that the regulations were impermissible violations of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The panel held that the first regulation, San Francisco Police Code section 4512(a), (c)(1), which requires handguns to be stored in a locked container at home or disabled with a trigger lock when not carried on the person, burdened the rights protected by the Second Amendment because such storage regulations were not part of a long historical tradition of proscription. Nevertheless, the panel determined that section 4512 was not a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right itself because it did not prevent an individual from possessing a firearm in the home. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that San Francisco had shown that section 4512’s requirement that persons store handguns in a locked storage container or with a trigger lock when not carried on the person was substantially related to the important government interest of reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries. The panel held that the second regulation, San Francisco Police Code section 613.10(g), which prohibits the sale of hollow-point ammunition within San Francisco, may burden the core Second Amendment right of self-defense and the record contained no persuasive historical evidence suggesting otherwise. The panel therefore held that section 613.10(g) regulated conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that San Francisco carried its burden of establishing that section 613.10(g) was a reasonable fit to achieve its goal of reducing the lethality of ammunition. The panel held that because San Francisco’s regulations did not destroy the Second Amendment right, and survived intermediate scrutiny, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs would not succeed on the merits of their claims.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

- - - - -

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.htmll

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07-290.

Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-23   2:22:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#13)

So what does the California state constitution say about their citizens' right to keep and bear arms?

Oh, it says nothing. The California state constitution does not protect this right.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-23   8:53:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#17)

So what does the California state constitution say about their citizens' right to keep and bear arms?

Oh, it says nothing. The California state constitution does not protect this right.

If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-23   15:15:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#21)

"If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights."

No.

Since the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not protected themselves from the Cali government authority to mess with their gun rights.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-23   17:48:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#24)

No.

Since the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not protected themselves from the Cali government authority to mess with their gun rights.

No. Such interpretation is directly contrary to the Cali constitution since 1849.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

In Cali's constitution of 1849, Article 1, Section 21 provided:

SEC. 21. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-23   17:56:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, both wrong, as usual. (#25)

nolu chan (#21) ---- "If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights."

Since the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not protected themselves from the Cali government authority to mess with their gun rights. ---- misterwhite

Amusingly enough, both of you assume that the people of California can delegate away their inalienable rights. "Inalienable" means these rights CANNOT be infringed.. Just as the Fed and State constitutions say: ---

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-24   12:15:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: All, nolu chan, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#28)

U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers www.dec http://aturdaily.com/deca...pinion/other/050410.shtml ^ |

7/10/06 | W.S. Dixon Posted on 7/11/2006, 4:03:24 PM by tpaine

U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers

Following is the fifth in a series of columns by members of the Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform.

By W.S. Dixon

Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments.

In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:

"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 of the equal protection of the laws."

This then makes the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment --- religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition --- apply in the states.

If the Supreme Court of the United States had not made this interpretation of the above clauses in the 14th Amendment, the states would have been free to restrict religious freedom and even establish a particular religion as the official state religion, to prohibit any desired variety of speech, to limit or prohibit the printing or disseminating of any information the state decided was not allowed, to prohibit or restrict meetings of any kind as the legislature desired, and to prohibit or restrict access to state public officials. Other restrictions on the states are specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 10. In addition, because of the powers assigned to the Congress, the states cannot regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states, nor can they naturalize citizens, fix standards of weights and measures, declare war, nor raise or support an army or navy.

Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above.

State constitutions are limited, in part as a result of these restrictions. States do, however, have the ability to regulate all other levels of government situated within their territory

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-24   12:27:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#29)

U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers

[...]

Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments.

In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:

I believe Dixon misses his target. The BoR placed limits on the powers Federal government. Incorporating elements of the BoR to the States only places those limits on State government. That did not affect State sovereignty. It did affect the powers of sovereignty which States agree not to exercise while members of the constitutional union.

In the Panama Canal Zone treaty, sovereign Panama delegated to the United States all its sovereign powers of jurisdiction. Powers were delegated, not sovereignty. The treaty stated that the United States could exercise jurisdiction as if it were the sovereign. This effected no change in the sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone. Panama agreed not to exercise certain sovereign powers, but the sovereignty never left Panama.

Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above.

While I agree with the conclusion that states can no longer claim to meet the definition of sovereign states, I reach that conclusion on a basis not cited.

One of the elements of sovereignty is the self-determination of the citizenry. The 14th provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. That dictates to the States who is a citizen of the State.

Previously, the path to U.S. citizenship was through citizenship of a State.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-24   13:50:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, too conservative, y'all (#31)

Dixon says: ---

Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments. In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:

Chan --- I believe Dixon misses his target. The BoR placed limits on the powers Federal government. Incorporating elements of the BoR to the States only places those limits on State government.

You are ignoring the specific limits placed on States and their constitutions by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. -- Misterwhite even scoffs at them.

That did not affect State sovereignty. It did affect the powers of sovereignty which States agree not to exercise while members of the constitutional union. ---- ----- Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above. ---- While I agree with the conclusion that states can no longer claim to meet the definition of sovereign states, I reach that conclusion on a basis not cited.

Taken overall, our Constitution clearly protects the people's inalienable rights (to arms, among others) from infringements by ANY level of our governments.

Why this is disputed by some americans is beyond understanding, imho. Do you have an answer? - Anyone?

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-24   16:01:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: tpaine (#34)

Taken overall, our Constitution clearly protects the people's inalienable rights (to arms, among others) from infringements by ANY level of our governments.

The BoR, where incorporated, protects from certain infringements pursuant to the 14th Amdt. Prior, it had no applicability to the states.

Where the Federal government was not delegated some jurisdiction and power, the States could be delegated such power by their citizens.

So, for example, Amendment 5 provides, "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...."

States routine prosecute capital offenses and other crimes by way of an information. The grand jury requirement only applies to Federal jurisdiction.

Inalienable rights are cited in a political document, the Declaration of Independence, which has no force at law.

Anything in the Constitution is very alienable by an amendment.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-24   16:32:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: nolu chan (#36)

Chan --- I believe Dixon misses his target. The BoR placed limits on the powers Federal government. Incorporating elements of the BoR to the States only places those limits on State government.

You are ignoring the specific limits placed on States and their constitutions by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. --

Taken overall, our Constitution clearly protects the people's inalienable rights (to arms, among others) from infringements by ANY level of our governments.

The BoR, where incorporated, protects from certain infringements pursuant to the 14th Amdt. Prior, it had no applicability to the states.

Again, you ignore Article VI, wherein the supremacy clause applies the entire US constitution and the BOR's to the States, and to their constitutions.

Where the Federal government was not delegated some jurisdiction and power, the States could be delegated such power by their citizens. ---- Inalienable rights are cited in a political document, the Declaration of Independence, which has no force at law. --- Anything in the Constitution is very alienable by an amendment.

Amendments or 'laws' that alienate away our basic human rights would be null and void from enactment. Marbury v Madison made that point very clear.

Why do you WANT to give a majority the ability to 'alienate by amendment'?

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-24   18:37:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: tpaine (#39)

[tpaine #39] Amendments or 'laws' that alienate away our basic human rights would be null and void from enactment. Marbury v Madison made that point very clear

tpaineworld v Marbury

Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

At 5 U.S. 176

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

The people established for the government, by the Constitution and the authority of the people is supreme.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 176

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

By the Constitution, the people used their supreme power to assign delegated powers to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 176-177

The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

The powers are defined and limited. If those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, the distinction between a government of limited and unlimited powers is abolished. This clearly speaks to the spurious nonsense espoused at tpaineworld.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 177

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

There is no middle ground. Either the Constitution is the paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is no more authoritative that a law passed by Congress. Only in tpaineworld may the government strike down the paramount law of the Constitution.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 177

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

The tpaineworld assertion that the Constitution may be struck down by the government leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit the illimatable power of the government.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 177

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

While the Framers wrote the Constitution as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, in tpaineworld the Constitution may be struck down or ignored by the government it created, or by the government officials to which it applies.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 177

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

The Constitution is to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is the paramount law. Except in tpaineworld where the Court may strike it down, and the government and its officials may ignore it.

Skipping to 5 U.S. 179-80:

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

In the Framers' world, the Constitution rules the courts and the legislature. In tpaineworld the courts can strike down the Constitution and the entire government and its officials have the power to ignore the Constitution.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 180:

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

In tpaineworld, an immoral duty is imposed to violate what they swear to support.

Continuing at 5 U.S. 180:

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?

The judge does not, except in tpaineworld.

And, at 5 U.S. 180:

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The Constitution is the fundamental, paramount law of the nation, and the courts, as well as all other government departments, are bound by the Constitution.

Except in tpaineworld where courts strike down the Constitution and the government departments are empowered to ignore the Constitution at their discretion.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-26   16:57:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 53.

#55. To: nolu chan (#53) (Edited)

Amendments or 'laws' that alienate away our basic human rights would be null and void from enactment. Marbury v Madison made that point very clear

Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) ---- "Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Except in tpaineworld where courts strike down the Constitution and the government departments are empowered to ignore the Constitution at their discretion.

No, I wrote that the SCOTUS can issue an opinion that a law or amendment is unconstitutional, --- and that then, the other branches are empowered to ignore the unconstitutional acts. ---- Here: ---

But if in their opinion, what the people have enacted is unconstitutional, the executive and legislature are free to ignore an unconstitutional amendment, and work for its repeal.

T his is just willfully ignorant. I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea that I take such absurd argument seriously. It is sort of like fighting with a punch me doll.

Your increasingly unprofessional opinions are noted, and rejected.

Neither the Executive nor Legislature is free to ignore the Constitution or any part thereof, and neither they nor the judiciary can declare an amendment to be unconstitutional.

I asked you earlier to prove your contention. Is this it?

I am discussing actual law, not your fantasy version. ---- Citing Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), Laurence H. Tribe wrote in American Constitutional Law, Third Edition, Volume 1, at 105, that "Coleman can be regarded today as imposing an absolute bar on judicial review of the amendment process. The Court's instinct that most questions regarding the amendment process should be nonjusticiable is on target: constitutional amendment is a political, not legal, process, and judicial supervision of that process threatens to undermine the independence of Article V from normal legal processes—and poses particular problems when the amendment at issue is one proposed in response to judicial decisions." ---- holding that the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of the action of the legislatures of the States, whose alleged ratifications were assailed, was conclusive upon the Secretary of State, and that his proclamation accordingly of ratification was conclusive upon the courts, we affirmed the judgment of the state court. Coleman at 440. ----- Once the Secretary of State declares that the Amendment has been ratified and become part of the Constitution, his declaration is conclusive upon the courts.

So? -- That's an opinion by Tribe and the Coleman court. -- It does NOT prove your case.

The President swears to protect and defend the Constitution, not ignore it at his discretion. The Constitution is explicitly binding all three branches.

Yep, but he has the power to ignore it at his discretion (checks and balances, remember?) ---- and the big operative phrase is, -- "IN PURSUANCE THEREOF", -- also emphasized by Marshall in Marbury, as you well know, but refuse to admit..

Article 2: ----- "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article 6: ----- " 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution....

Thanks for posting the above bit about the oaths. --- They make my point, not yours...

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-28 04:13:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 53.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com