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: 59295
Comments: 164
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: 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.”
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.
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-124) not displayed.
.
.
.
#125. To: tpaine (#124)
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? 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) And my pet plant has been watered for another day.
Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do.. Continuing only demonstrates your desperation and mental problems, so have at it. Which statement demonstrates your mental problems, poor fella.
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): Productions v. Fogerty, 3:14-cv-00633-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Aug 26, 2015) [John Fogerty, Creedence Clearwater Revival]
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.. 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.
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): [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: 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. 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) 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.
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..
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. 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): Poor, poor tpaine. There are so many Federal court opinions, and they are unanimous that you are full of shit. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) for the learning impaired: Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Beckhoff Automation, LLC, 2:13-cv-01616-RCJ-NJK (D. Nev. May 30, 2014)
tpaine #126] Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do.. SCOTUS opinions do not change the supreme law of the land. Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit.
[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: 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)
SCOTUS opinions do not change the supreme law of the land. 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…
[tpaine #134] 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) [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)
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 in reply you post more opinions. --- This is true insanity.
Opinions do not change our Constitution… Translation: Thank you sir! May I have another? Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) [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:] 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] 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)
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.
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) [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) [...] 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.
Opinions do not change our Constitution… And true to your own insane opinions, you reply with more opinions. Fine with me, because I can also make fun of your idiocy, for years.
[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) [...] 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).
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.
[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)
[tpaine #140] Fine with me, because I can also make fun of your idiocy, for years. Time for more making more fun of your idiotic reposts, you mean. Rant on.
[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)
Time for more making more fun of your idiotic reposts, you mean. Rant on, making non substantive responses.
Translation: Thank you, Sir! May I have another? Of course. Every day you ask, I intend to provide you with yet another federal court opinion showing that you are full of shit. It is so easy and not at all time consuming. Relevant federal court opinions 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. The Federal courts have been unanimous that the Bill of Rights has never applied to the States except as they have been selectively incorporated into the 14th Amendment. Have another: Bravo Co. v. Badger Ordnance LLC, 2:14-cv-00387-RCJ-GWF (D. Nev. Jun 16, 2014) A reminder of the cited precedent, almost two centuries old and still going strong. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.) [...] 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. [...] 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. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 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.
[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. Fine with me too. Here is your weekly update. 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 with yet another federal court opinion documenting that the Bill of Rights does not restrain the States. The Fourteenth amendment restrains the States regarding certain rights that have been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. A claim against a State under one of the BoR amendments directly is found not cognizable pursuant to Barron v. City of Baltimore. ROE v. BUTTERWORTH, (S.D.Fla. 1997), 958 F. Supp. 1569 (S.D. Fla. 1997) 1Since Petitioner's claim is brought only against the State of Florida through its Attorney General, it is only cognizable pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833).
Time for more making more fun of your idiotic reposts, you mean. Rant on, making non substantive, weirdo responses, imagining that you're "spanking" anyone.
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 Plaintiffs' substantive due process argument is only valid insofar as it asserts a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. There can be no Fifth Amendment violation here since Defendants are not federal actors. See Barron, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833).
Time for more making more fun of your idiotic reposts, you mean. Rant on, making non substantive, weirdo responses, imagining that you're "spanking" anyone. Another opinion does not change our Constitution.
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)
Time for more making more fun of your idiotic reposts, you mean. Rant on, making non substantive, weirdo responses, imagining that you're "spanking" anyone. Another opinion does not change our Constitution. You're crazy as a bedbug in your repetitious postings. -- I'm thinking of taking pity on you and ending this farce. Are you lucid enough to agree?
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) Defendant Cannon contends that Johnson cannot establish a cause of action pursuant to the Fifth Amendment because the protections afforded by this amendment are applicable only to federal actions. The Fifth Amendment is applicable to the actions of federal, not state government. See Barron v. Mayor City Council, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833); Newsom v. Vanderbilt Univ., 653 F.2d 1100, 1113 (6th Cir. 1981). Johnson has made no allegations that any of Armstrong's actions were made under color of federal law. The Court hereby grants the Motion to Dismiss as to any alleged Fifth Amendment violation.
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.
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. 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) 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.
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.
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. 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
.
. tpaine posted on 2016-07-12 15:52:27 ET - - - - - - - - - - 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. 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) The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a common-law right. Entich v. Carrington, 1765, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029; Boyd v. United States, 1886, 116 U.S. 616, 624-632, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 . Thus the Fourth Amendment did not create a new right, but merely gave a pre-existing common-law right constitutional protection from invasion by the Federal Government. Accordingly, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not limit state or individual action, but only federal action. Twining v. New Jersey, 1908, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97 ; Spies v. Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L.Ed. 80; Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, 7 Pet. 243, 32 U.S. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 . As was said in Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 490, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408, 154 A.L.R. 982: "* * * for more than one hundred years * * * one of the settled principles of our Constitution has been that these Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit." Cf. Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159; Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 , L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 1177; Hall v. United States, 9 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 54; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 926.
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?
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. 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) At the time of its adoption in 1871, 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, "initiating what has been called a process of 'selective incorporation,' i.e. the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the first [ten] Amendments." McDonald v. City of Chicago, III., 561 U.S. 742, 763 (2010)(alteration in original)(listing cases). The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall...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." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In the cases decided during this era, the Court fashioned the boundaries of the Due Process Clause by expressly incorporating those rights considered fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. See id., 561 U.S. at 760-764; see also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)(indicating that due process protects those rights that are "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty"); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968)(referring to those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions")(internal quotations omitted). Today, most of the rights found in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated.
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?
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: 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? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. 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? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Good grief, ---how long do you intend to beat this dead imaginary horse?
tpaine #49 The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
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.).
#126. To: nolu chan (#125)
There are many such court opinions. I intend to continue citing court opinions one day longer than continue to spew bullshit.
And my pet plant has been watered for another day.
#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..
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.”
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)
The Constitution, as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land.
#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..
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.”
“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.
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.
#130. To: nolu chan (#129)
#131. To: tpaine (#130)
[tpaine #129] Please, do continue your madness..
[tpaine #126] Court opinions do NOT change the bill of rights. Only statists claim they do..
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 #49] The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
“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."
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)
The Constitution, as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is 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.
#133. To: tpaine (#132)
“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.
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)
Poor, poor tpaine. There are so many Federal court opinions, and they are unanimous that you are full of shit.
Every relevant Federal court opinion ever rendered documents that you are full of shit.
#135. To: tpaine (#134)
Poor poor nolu, full of insane opinions that don't mean shit. ...
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.”
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 tpaine. Here's an oldie but a goodie ----
#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...
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.”
Read below: --- "on a presentment or indictment".
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.
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)
#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...
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.”
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.
#140. To: nolu chan (#139)
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.
#141. To: tpaine (#140)
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).
#142. To: nolu chan (#141)
The number of relevant Federal court opinions is legion, and they all say tpaine is full of shit.
#143. To: tpaine (#142)
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.
Time for yet another spanking.
#145. To: tpaine (#144)
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).
#146. To: nolu chan (#145)
Time for yet another spanking.
#147. To: tpaine (#146)
[tpaine #146] Time for more making more fun of your idiotic reposts, you mean. Rant on, making non substantive responses.
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.).
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.
#148. To: tpaine (#140)
Petitioner brings her claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.1
#149. To: nolu chan, imagining spankings, gets ever more excited. (#148)
Time for yet another spanking.
#150. To: tpaine (#149)
[tpaine #149] Thank you, Sir! May I have another?
#151. To: nolu chan (#150)
Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States ---
#152. To: tpaine (#151)
Thank you sir, may I have another?
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.).
#153. To: nolu chan (#152)
Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States ---
Thank you sir, may I have another? --- Of course. As many as needed to persuade you --
#154. To: tpaine (#153)
Thank you sir, may I have another?
D. FIFTH AMENDMENT
#155. To: nolu chan (#154)
#156. To: tpaine (#155)
Thank you sir, may I have another?
[tpaine #155] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,
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).
#157. To: nolu chan (#156)
#158. To: tpaine (#157)
Thank you sir, may I have another?
[tpaine #157] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,
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.
#159. 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. (#158)
#160. To: tpaine (#159)
#159. 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. (#158)
Thank you sir, may I have another?
[tpaine #157] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,
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 * * *."
#161. To: nolu chan (#160)
#162. To: tpaine (#161)
Thank you sir, may I have another?
[tpaine #157] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,
B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation
#163. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#162)
#164. To: tpaine (#163)
#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)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]