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: 59260
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 (1-43) not displayed.
.
.
.
#44. To: tpaine (#41)
As usual, you fail to read and understand. ---- Note "as specified in the document itself". ---- There are specific exceptions, within the document. -- You claim the 5th amendment is such an exception. As shown below, I contended the entire Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government and not to the States when ratified in 1791. Pursuant to the 14th Amendment, parts of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated to apply to the States. The Second Amendment has recently been fully incorporated by McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010). The Grand Jury provision of the 5th Amendment has never been incorporated and has never applied to the States, not in 1791, not now, and not in between. No part of the Bill of Rights applies to the States, or has ever applied to the States, except those which have specifically been incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Your repeated claim that "This SCOTUS opinion is not definitive, and does not change the clear words of our Constitution, which has always applied to the States, except where specifically noted," is bullshit and has been bullshit for over two centuries. As I have clearly stated, no part of the Bill of Rights has ever applied to the States until it was incorporated by the Supreme Court. Incorporation started in the 20th century. The Bill of Rights still has portions that have not been incorporated. The Great State of California has, with no grand jury presentment or indictment, prosecuted a man for first degree murder, sentenced him to death, and had that upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. You may try to dodge, duck and divert but it isn't going to work. I will return yo to your bullshit and destroy it. You are only documenting your ignorance of the law, as with your ignorance of what a presentment is, and your ignorance of the rule of incorporation. When ratified, the Bill of Rights hade no application to the States. According to you, it doesn't. -- Which does NOT MEAN that a State like California can ignore the 2nd Amendment. Why do you think it can? The 2nd Amendment was fully incorporated in 2010 against the states., all of them, including California. As I said at my #19: "County zoning laws which unduly infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights are unconstitutional." The 5th Amendment has never been fully incorporated and the Grand Jury provision has never applied to the States. To help you remember: The 14th Amendment did not exist in the times of the Framers. In their time the entire BoR only applied to the Federal Government. See MacDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), Syllabus at 2: See MacDonald, Syllabus at 3: County zoning laws which unduly infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights are unconstitutional. This SCOTUS opinion is not definitive, and does not change the clear words of our Constitution, which has always applied to the States, except where specifically noted. Correct.
According to you, it doesn't. -- Which does NOT MEAN that a State like California can ignore the 2nd Amendment. Why do you think it can? Good to see that on that point, we agree. Other than that, you really should try to find another hobby. - - Constitutional law certainly seems to be causing you to become overwrought.
States are bound to honor our Constitution and its amendments, as specified in the document itself, and they always have been. More than 'mere', as we see by the repetitive postings of lengthy legalistic bull. It's very amusing though, you must admit..
According to you, it doesn't. No, acccording to all law books and the U.S. Supreme Court. You make the bullshit claim that the whole Bill of Rights has always applied to the States. Cornered liike a trappede rat, you can only bluster and try more bullshit. What is obvious, and wich you only make more obvious, is that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Part of the 5th Amendment not applying does not mean that the 2nd Amendment does not apply. Only a shithead, such as yourself, would make that claim. Good to see that on that point, we agree. The 2nd Amendment was fully incorporated in 2010 by McDonald. In 1791, it did not apply at all to States. Good to see that on that point, we agree. Oh noes. I wouldn't think of it. You are not good for much but slapping around for amusement. Keep providing amusement, you are doing a fine impression of a hit me doll. Unfortunately, you do not know shit about the law and it is painfully obvious. I will try to make it as painfully obvious as posssible. IF, AS YOU MAINTAIN, THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLIES, AND HAS ALWAYS APPLIED TO THE STATES, WHY HAVE THE STATES ALWAYS BEEN FREE TO IGNORE THE GRAND JURY REQUIREMENT OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT? No answer, huh?
Of course, the States have always been free to ignore the Grand Jury requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Poor little amusing tpaine can't seem to explain how that fits with his bullshit.
Good to see that on that point, we agree. The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance. - They, (and you) are losing. Other than that, you really should try to find another hobby. - - Constitutional law certainly seems to be causing you to become overwrought. Why? --- I can only speculate, but I'd say this minor point was conceded to the statism freaks by wise constitutionalists. Compromise is a necessary evil in our republican form of govt.
But you admit that part of the 5th Amendment has never applied and has been ignored by the States since 1791, and you are unable to explain why your bullshit theory of the constitution has been ignored for 215 years and counting. You and your bullshit are a winner, as described by Oliver Wendell Holmes, tpaine #40, imaginary constitutional law. Only an idiot, such as tpaine, could find an amendment to the Constitution to be unconstitutional. As for the whole Bill of Rights, Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest. American Constitutional Law 1, Sources of Power and Restraint, Otis H. Stephens, jr. and John M. Sheb II, 5th Ed., 2012, at 321: Constitutional Law, 17th Ed., Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther, Foundation Press, 2000, Page 348: Constitutional Law, 3rd Edition, Erwin Chermerinsky, Aspen Publishers, 2009, page 525-26: BARRON v. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BLATIMORE, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) [case quote omitted] From a late twentieth century perspective, it is troubling that state and local governments were free to violate basic constitutional rights. Yet, at the time of its decision, Barron made sense because of faith in state constitutions and because of the shared understanding that the Bill of Rights was meant to apply only to the federal government. As Professor John Hart Ely noted: "In terms of the original understanding, Barron was almost certainly decided correctly." Cases and Materials on Federal Constitutional Law, Volume V, The Fourteenth Amendment, Lee J. Strang, Lexis-Nexis 2013, page 61: The Incorporation Doctrine is a key function of the Due Process Clause. The Doctrine holds that (most of) the Bill of Rights applies to the states. The Incorporation Doctrine was at the heart of intense controversy from the 1920s to the 1960s. The controversy had a number of facets: first, whether the Bill of Rights applied to the states; second, whether the Due Process Clause was the vehicle to make that happen; third, whether the Due Process Clause incorporated some or all of the Bill of Rights; fourth, if the Due Process Clause incorporated only some of the Bill of Rights, what test should the Supreme Court utilize to make that determination; and, fifth, are the rights incorporated against the states identical to the rights as applied to the federal government? The background to the Incorporation Doctrine has two major components. The first is the Supreme Court case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), reprinted below, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights only restricted the federal government. The second component is the goal of the Reconstruction Republicans, inherited from the antebellum abolitionist movement, to apply federal constitutional restrictions to the states to prohibit slavery and protect newly freed black Americans. American Constitutional Law, Second Edition, Lawrence H. Tribe, The Foundation Press, Inc., 1988, page 772: (some citations omitted) In 1938, in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the Supreme Court suggested that "[t]here may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth." Nine years later, the Court came within one vote of holding that the fourteenth amendment guaranteed that "no state could deprive its citizens of the privileges and protections of the Bill of Rights. 2 Such a holding could have taken either of two forms: most plausibly, it could have emerged as an elaboration of the privileges or immunities of national citizenship; or it could have emerged as a translation of fourteenth amendment "liberty" into the freedoms secured by the Bill of Rights, with the understanding that depriving someone of such liberty "without due process of law" means doing so "where the federal government could not." In neither form has the full incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the fourteenth amendment ever commanded a majority on the Court, but in giving content to the due process clause "the Court has looked increasingly to the Bill of Rights for guidance [to the point where] many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments'" have been "selectively" absorbed into the fourteenth. 2 Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 74-75 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting, joined on this issue by Douglas, Mruphy, and Rutledge, JJ.) Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black letter Series, West Group, 2003, page 164: One of the acts of the first Congress was to initiate the enactment of ten amendments to the Constitution, popularly called the Bill of Rights. These amendments were designed to protect the individual from various infringements on freedom which might emanate from the newly created federal government. The provisions of the Bill of Rights do not directly limit state action. Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833). Most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights apply to the states as part of the liberty protected by The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
***** C R I C K E T S *****
The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance. - They, (and you) are losing. Other than that, you really should try to find another hobby. - - Constitutional law certainly seems to be causing you to become overwrought. Why? --- I can only speculate, but I'd say this minor point was conceded to the statism freaks by wise constitutionalists. Compromise is a necessary evil in our republican form of govt. I've explained that to you numerous times before, on this thread, and others. --- You don't like my answer and you never will admit it. -- Tough. During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Do you really think that calling me a name resolves the issue: -- can we 'amend away' our inalienable rights? Constitutionally? --- Logically, of course NOT. -- Why would you WANT to argue that we can? Damned if I know, or care.. You then go on: --- Posting the same long list of opinions you've posted many times before. -- Opinions do not prove your point that: --
You are full of shit. Lesson #1001 follows. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) Syllabus at 542: Opinion of the Court at 552-53: The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government republican in form implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in Page 92 U. S. 553 these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States. Such, however, is not the case. The offence, as stated in the indictment, will be made out, if it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawful purpose whatever. The second and tenth counts are equally defective. 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.
The Cruikshank OPINION above, claims that local police are not "restrained by the Constitution of the United States."? And you actually believe this? Get help...
And you actually believe this? Get help... Typical asshole quote out of context. The tpaine Court of the Demented™ needs help. Help is on the way and will just keep on coming. http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep36&id=147#147 NYC v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102, 139 (1837) But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right but the bounden and solemn duty of a state to advance the safety, happiness, and prosperity of its people and to provide for its general welfare by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends where the power over the particular subject or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained, and that consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive. We are aware that it is at all times difficult to define any subject with proper precision and accuracy; if this be so in general, it is emphatically so in relation to a subject so diversified and multifarious as the one which we are now considering. If we were to attempt it, we should say that every law came within this description which concerned the welfare of the whole people of a state or any individual within it, whether it related to their rights or their duties; whether it respected them as men, or as citizens of the state; whether in their public or private relations; whether it related to the rights of persons or of property, of the whole people of a state or of any individual within it, and whose operation was within the territorial limits of the state and upon the persons and things within its jurisdiction.
***** C R I C K E T S *****
The Cruikshank OPINION above, claims that local police are not "restrained by the Constitution of the United States."? And you actually believe this? Get help... You posted the whole of the 'opinion', and I noted the part most offensive to our Constitutional principles, -- a part that is NOT out of context except in YOUR 'asshole' opinion. Here tis, again: Obviously, as stated in your own quote, there are indeed some state powers that are --- "restrained by the Constitution of the United States" --- Why in hell you choose to argue this point is beyond rationality. Really, get help..
And you actually believe this? Get help... Typical asshole quote out of context. The tpaine Court of the Demented™ needs help. Poor little paine is caught like a trapped rat. Help is on the way and will just keep on coming. States were not restrained by the Bill of Rights until well after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Cruikshank at 553: http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep32&id=559#559 Here is another U.S. Supreme Court opinion explicitly saying tpaine is a clueless gasbag. The hits just keep on coming. Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-52 (1833) This exception has already been disposed of by the view that has been taken of the nature and character of those laws. It has been shown that there is nothing in this provision either inconsistent with natural justice or the constitution of the state: there is nothing of an arbitrary character in them. They are also charged with being contrary to the ninth article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States, and the sixth section of the Pennsylvania bill of rights, securing the trial by juy. As to the amendments of the constitution of the United States, they must be put out of the case; since it is now settled that those amendments do not extend to the states: and this observation disposes of the next exception, which relies on the seventh article of those amendments.
***** C R I C K E T S *****
You mean your demented postings of arcane 'opinions' just keep on coming.. Whatta weirdo you are.
Of course, centuries of U.S. Supreme Court opinions are demented. Only tpaine is sane. Another daily dose of bullshit from the tpaine Court of the Demented™. Then again, it was demented tpaine who claims amendments to the constitution can be held unconstitutional. And it is demented tpaine who has shown he is incapable of response to my #40. I will repeat the post and demonstrate why tpaine is clearly demented in his claim that the Bill of Rights has always applied to the States. Read below: --- "on a presentment or indictment" Read again stupid: "Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury," States use neither a presentment nor an indictment of a grand jury. A grand jury is required for a Federal felony prosecution but not for a State prosecution. Get your head out of your ass. Learn what a presentment is dumbshit. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition 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? Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 (1884) 5th amd grand jury does not apply to states https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_procedure After law enforcement arrests a suspect, a judge will set the suspect's initial bail, which is a specified amount of cash that allows the defendant to get out of jail after the initial arrest. If the defendant shows up for the proper court dates, the court refunds the bail, but if the defendant skips the date, then the court keeps the bail and issues a warrant for the individual's arrest. The arraignment comes next. During an arraignment, a judge calls the person charged and takes the following actions: reading the criminal charges against the accused, asking the accused whether the accused has access to an attorney or needs the assistance of a court-appointed attorney, asking the accused to plead, deciding whether to amend the initial bail amount, and setting the dates of future proceedings. The preliminary hearing follows the arraignment. At the preliminary hearing, the judge determines whether enough evidence exists for the prosecution to meet its burden of persuasion. The burden of persuasion refers to whether the prosecution even has enough evidence to make the defendant stand trial. The defense has the right to cross examine the government witnesses during this proceeding. Under federal law, a grand jury, rather than a judge, makes this determination when the defendant faces "capital or infamous crimes" pursuant to the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Unlike the other rights afforded to criminal defendants, the U.S. Supreme Court has not found the Fifth Amendment grand jury right incorporated into state law through the Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurtado_v._California Joseph Hurtado discovered that his wife, Susie, was having an affair with their friend, José Antonio Estuardo. After measures Hurtado took to put an end to the adulterous affair, such as temporarily sending his wife away to live with her parents, and later assaulting Estuardo in a bar after his wife returned and the liaisons resumed, proved futile, Hurtado fatally shot Estuardo. Hurtado was arrested for the crime but not indicted by a grand jury. According to the California State Constitution at the time, the following applied: "Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county." The judge examined the information and determined that Hurtado should be brought to trial. Hurtado was tried, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. At issue was whether or not the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause extended to the states the 5th Amendment's Indictment Clause requiring indictment by grand jury. Questions presented Does a state criminal proceeding based on an information rather than a grand jury indictment violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause? [2] Is a grand jury indictment required by the 5th Amendment applicable to state criminal trials via the 14th Amendment? Supreme Court decision The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that Hurtado's due process right was not violated by denial of a grand jury hearing and that the 14th Amendment was not intended to work retroactively to apply the 5th Amendment to state criminal trials. Writing for the majority, Justice Matthews stated that the states should be free to construct their own laws without infringement and that the 14th Amendment was not intended to guarantee the right of a grand jury because it would have been specifically referenced. His opinion also concluded that Hurtado's due process right was not violated because an information is "merely a preliminary proceeding and can result in no final judgment." He further concluded that Hurtado still received a fair trial. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/110/516/case.html Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) Argued January 22d, 23d 1884. Decided March 3d, 1884 110 U.S. 516 IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. The words "due process of law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder. 2. The Constitution of California authorizes prosecutions for felonies by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, without indictment by a grand jury, in the discretion of the legislature. The Penal Code of the State makes provision for an examination by a magistrate, in the presence of the accused, who is entitled to the aid of counsel Page 110 U. S. 517 and the right of cross-examination of witnesses, whose testimony is to to reduced to writing and upon a certificate thereon by the magistrate that a described offence has been committed and that here is sufficient cause to believe the accused guilty thereof, and an order holding him to answer thereto, requires an information to be filed against the accused in the Superior court of the county in which the offence is triable in the form of an indictment for the same offence. Held, that a conviction upon such an information for murder in the first degree and a sentence of death thereon are not illegal by virtue of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which prohibits the States from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. [...] It follows that any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law. The Constitution of Connecticut, adopted in 1818 and in force when the Fourteenth Amendment took effect, requires an indictment or presentment of a grand jury only in cases where the punishment of the crime charged is death or imprisonment for life, and yet it also declares that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property but by due course of law." It falls short, therefore, of that measure of protection which it is claimed is guaranteed by Magna Charta to the right of personal liberty, notwithstanding which it is no doubt justly said in Swift's Digest 17, that "This sacred and inestimable right, without which all others are of little value, is enjoyed by the people of this State in as full extent as in any country on the globe, and in as high a degree as is consistent with the nature of civil government. No individual or body of men has a discretionary or arbitrary power to commit any person to prison; no man can be restrained of his liberty, be prevented from removing himself from place to place as he chooses, be compelled to go to a place contrary to his inclination, or be in any way imprisoned or confined unless by virtue of the express laws of the land. " Page 110 U. S. 538 Tried by these principles, we are unable to say that the substitution for a presentment or indictment by a grand jury of the proceeding by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, certifying to the probable guilt of the defendant, with the right on his part to the aid of counsel, and to the cross-examination of the witnesses produced for the prosecution, is not due process of law. It is, as we have seen, an ancient proceeding at common law, which might include every case of an offence of less grade than a felony, except misprision of treason, and in every circumstance of its administration, as authorized by the statute of California, it carefully considers and guards the substantial interest of the prisoner. It is merely a preliminary proceeding, and can result in no final judgment except as the consequence of a regular judicial trial, conducted precisely as in cases of indictments. In reference to this mode of proceeding at the common law, and which he says "is as ancient as the common law itself," Blackstone adds (4 Com. 305): "And as to those offences in which informations were allowed as well as indictments, so long as they were confined to this high and respectable jurisdiction and were carried on in a legal and regular course in His Majesty's Court of King's Bench, the subject had no reason to complain. The same notice was given, the same process was issued, the same pleas were allowed, the same trial by jury was had, the same judgment was given by the same judges, as if the prosecution had originally been by indictment." For these reasons, finding no error therein, the judgment of the Supreme Court of California is Affirmed.
You mean your demented postings of arcane 'opinions' just keep on coming.. You yourself admitted, way up post, that SCOTUS opinions have changed over the years. -- This doesn't make THEM demented, but you sure are... But keep it up, please, --- this is really becoming amusing.
It is demented tpaine who has demonstrated he is incapable of explaining why states have never been required to use a presentment or indictment of a grand jury as required by Amendment 5 for the Federal government. After all, he is the jackass who insists that the entire Bill of Rights has always applied to the States, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. And, of course, he has nothing with which to support his bullshit other than more of his own bullshit. It's time for yet another U.S. Supreme Court opinion documenting that tpaine is full of shit. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/123/case.html U.S. Supreme Court United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 132-33 (1973) Douglas, J. dissenting "the great object in view [was] to limit and qualify the powers of [the Federal] Government by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode." 1 Annals of Cong. 437. Surely no one should argue that the retention by the States of vestiges of established religions after the enactment of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses saps these clauses of their meaning. Yet it was precisely upon such reasoning that this Court, in Roth, exempted the bawdry from the protection of the First Amendment. When it was enacted, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government, Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, and the Tenth Amendment reserved the residuum of power to the States and the people. That the States, at some later date, may have exercised this reserved power in the form of laws restricting expression in no wise detracts from the express prohibition of the First Amendment. Only when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed did it become even possible to argue that, through it, the First Amendment became applicable to the States. But that goal was not attained until the ruling of this Court in 1931 that the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment included the First Amendment. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 283 U. S. 368.
You mean your demented postings of arcane 'opinions' just keep on coming.. Explained just above. --- As usual, you don't like my explanation, so you deny that it was made. -- You're behaving like a spoiled brat. No mountain of evidence exists, just a a pile of opinions by pre civil war slave statists and after by Jim Crow democrats, followed by gun and drug war prohibitionists. Obviously, nolu chan supports these statist prohibitionists.
Obviously, nolu chan supports these statist prohibitionists. From my #63 referred to. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/123/case.html United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 132-33 (1973) Douglas, J. dissenting "the great object in view [was] to limit and qualify the powers of [the Federal] Government by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode." [...] Yes, per the demented tpaine, James Madison was a pre-civil war slave statist who did not understand what the Bill of Rights was about. tpaine is the self-appointed expert who knows better than James Madison, he who is renowned as the Father of the Constitution and co-author of the Federalist Papers. As will be seen shortly, tpaine also knows better than the Framers of the 14th Amendment. tpaine is an ignorant, demented shitbag. James Madison, Gales & Seatons History of the Debates in Congress, June 9, 1789, pp. 453-54 [...] But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of right can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper.
No mountain of evidence exists, just a a pile of opinions by pre civil war slave statists and after by Jim Crow democrats, followed by gun and drug war prohibitionists. Obviously, nolu chan supports these statist prohibitionists. Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States. But whatever, -- Please continue your demented ranting. -- It's fun..
nolu chan at #65: [...] But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. tpaine at #66: You are clearly a bigoted asshole fuckstick. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The world needs bigoted asshole fucksticks to laugh at. Let us not forget that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and Illinois, the Land o' Lincoln, proudly replaced slavery with 99-year indentured servitude and among the strictest Black laws in the country. Indeed, after slavery ended in the South, the 13th Amendment was needed to end slavery in the Union states where it persisted. Onward and upward at demonstrating the scope of your assholery in denying that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and characterizing James Madison as a liar when he said that. Representative John Bingham and Senator Jacob Howard were co-authors, Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. They should have known why a Fourteenth Amendment was necessary, and that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Representative John Bingham, House of Representatives, 28 February 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1089-90: Mr. Speaker, on this subject I refer the House and the country to a decision of the Supreme Court, to be found in 7 Peters, 217, in the case of Barron vs. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, involving the question whether the provisions of the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution are binding upon the State of Maryland and to be enforced in the Federal courts. The Chief Justice says: "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 of power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the Government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. "If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining tho power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States." I read one further decision on this subject— the case of the Lessee of Livingston vs. Moore and others 7 Peters, page 551. The court, in delivering its opinion, says: "As to the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, they must be put out of the case, since it is now settled that those amendments do not extend to the States; and this observation disposes of the next exception, which relies on the seventh article of those amendments."
tpaine at #66: Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States. You're the laugh here, reduced to sputtering your silly language. -- Nothing bigoted about civil war facts.. SO? -- What? Read much? I didn't characterize Madison as a liar, -- which makes you one, as anyone can read.. How weird you are, as the above proves MY point.
I'm beating on your sorry ass so bad, could you please affirm that you are over 12 years old. I don't want anyone to accuse me of child abuse. [tpaine #66] Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States. [tpaine #68] Read much? I didn't characterize Madison as a liar, -- which makes you one, as anyone can read.. Of course you did. You allege he told a deliberate untruth to deceive others. That is what a lie is. A lie is told by a liar. That would be you. Madison told the truth. [tpaine #68 quoting my quote of Bingham] "I answered that I was prepared to introduce such decisions; and that is exactly what makes plain the necessity of adopting this amendment. [tpaine #68] No, dishonorable asshole. Decisions showing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, necessitating the 14th Amendment to cure the problem, prove you are a dishonorable asshole. Continuing with Bingham showing that you are a dishonorable asshole— Representative John Bingham Representative John Bingham and Senator Jacob Howard were co-authors of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. app. 84 (1871) "The amendments [to the Constitution] contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."—7 Peters, p. 250. In this case the city had taken private property for public use, without compensation as alleged, and there was no redress for the wrong in the Supreme Court of the United States; and only for this reason, the first eight amendments were not limitations on the power of the States. And so afterward, in the case of the Lessee of Livingston vs. Moore and others, (7 Peters, 652,) the court ruled, "it is now settled that the amendments [to the Constitution] do not extend to the States." They were but limitations upon Congress. [...] In reëxamining that case of Barron, Mr. Speaker, after my struggle in the House in February, 1866, to which the gentleman has alluded, I noted and apprehended as I never did before, certain words in that opinion of Marshall. Referring to the first eight articles of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Chief Justice said: "Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention." Barron vs. The Mayor, &c, 7 Peters, 250. Acting upon this suggestion I did imitate the framers of the original Constitution. As they had said "no State shall emit bills of credit, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts imitating their example and imitating it to the letter, I prepared the provision of the first section of the fourteenth amendment as it stands in the Constitution, as follows: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person office, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I hope the gentleman now knows why I changed the form of the amendment of February, 1866. Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows: Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article II. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Article III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, he quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in the manner to be prescribed by law. Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Article 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 eases 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 on 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. Article VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Article VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Article VIII.. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines, imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. These eight articles I have shown never "were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make. Mr. Speaker, that decision in the fourth of Washington's Circuit Court Reports, to which my learned colleague [Mr. Shellabarger] has referred is only a construction of the second section, fourth article of the original Constitution, to wit, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." In that case the court only held that in civil rights the State could not refuse to extend to citizens of other States the same general rights secured to its own. In the case of The United States vs. Primrose, Mr. Webster said that— "For the purposes of trade, it is evidently not in the power of any State to impose any hinderance or embarrassment, &c, upon citizens of other States, or to place them, on coming there, upon a different footing from her own citizens."—6 Webster's Works, 112. The learned Justice Story declared that— "The intention of the clause ('the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,') was to confer on the citizens of each State a general citizenship, and communicated all the privileges and immunities which a citizen of the same State would be entitled to under the same circumstances." — Story on the Constitution, vol. 2, page 605. Is it not clear that other and different privileges and immunities than those to which a citizen of a State was entitled are secured by the provision of the fourteenth article, that no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are defined in the eight articles of amendment, and which were not limitations on the power of the States before the fourteenth amendment made them limitations? Sir, before the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, the State could deny to any citizen the right of trial by jury, and it was done. Before that the State could abridge the freedom of the press, and it was so done in half of the States of the Union. Before that a State, as in the case of the State of Illinois, could make it a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment for any citizen within her limits, in obedience to the injunction of our divine Master, to help a slave who was ready to perish; to give him shelter, or break with him his crust of bread. The validity of that State restriction upon the rights of conscience and the duty of life was affirmed, to the shame and disgrace of America, in the Supreme Court of the United States; but nevertheless affirmed in obedience to the requirements of the Constitution. (14 Howard, 19-20. Moore vs. The People.) Under the Constitution as it is, not as it was, and by force of the fourteenth amendment, no State hereafter can imitate the bad example of Illinois, to which I have referred, nor can any State ever repeat the example of Georgia and send men to the penitentiary, as did that State, for teaching the Indian to read the lessons of the New Testament, to know that new evangel, "The pure in heart shall see God." Damn, you are one stupid asshole.
Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States. Madison shaded/compromised the truth (that the BOR'S applied to States) in order to get the slave States to ratify. To Madison, ratification was more important than a white 'lie'. Just yesterday, our leader asked for a bit more civility. Do you feel exempt?
But he never asked anyone to lie. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Just yesterday, our leader asked for a bit more civility. This was nolu Chan's line.
I'm beating on your sorry ass so bad, could you please affirm that you are over 12 years old. I don't want anyone to accuse me of child abuse. Madison shaded/compromised the truth (that the BOR'S applied to States) in order to get the slave States to ratify. To Madison, ratification was more important than a white 'lie'. No, you stupid fuck. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and co-author of the Federalist Papers, told them the truth that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. The Supreme Court contained one (1) nominee of Adams, one (1) of Jefferson, two (2) of Madison, two (2) of Monroe, and one (1) of Jackson, when it decided the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. The opinion of the Court was UNANIMOUS. Every Justice in 1833, including those appointed by Madison, agreed with Madison and found that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Do tell, dishonorable asshole, were all the Supreme Court Justices still carrying on with your fairy tale of an alleged Madison white lie, or plain outrageous lie to deceive the people into ratifying eight constitutional amendments? Why, 1833, were all the Supreme Court justices perpetuating what you call a white lie by Madison as a Framer of the Bill of Rights? Why did the seven justices unanimously lie in 1833? Chief Justice John Marshall -- Federalist [Adams] Justice William Johnson -- Democratic-Republican Party [Jefferson] Justice Gabriel Duvall -- Democratic-Republican Party [Madison] Justice Joseph Story -- Democratic-Republican Party [Madison] Justice Smith Thompson -- National Republican Party [Monroe] Justice McLean -- Democraatic-Republican Party [Monroe] Justice Baldwin -- Democratic Republican Party [Jackson] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/32us243 Respondent Docket no. Decided by Citation Argued Decided Facts of the case John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses. Question Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner? Conclusion dismissal - other by John Marshall The provisions of the first eight amendments applied only to the national government, not to the states No. The Court announced its decision in this case without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states. Cite this page "Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Jun 2, 2016. No. I have always provided, and wish to assure you, that I will always provide you with the all civility and courtesy you deserve.
But don't lie. If tpaine is an asshole... well then it is what it is. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States. Madison shaded/compromised the truth (that the BOR'S applied to States) in order to get the slave States to ratify. To Madison, ratification was more important than a white 'lie'. Because they were attempting to save the Union by telling the slave States what they insisted hearing. -- It worked, --- for a while.
Just yesterday, our leader asked for a bit more civility. Do you feel exempt? Belied by your foul mouth just above.
In 1833? You are a fucking idiot. (Actually you just post make believe fiction to be a pain in the ass, but I like to call you a fucking idiot for doing it.) I suppose that the States, today, are allowed to ignore the 5th Amendment requirement to obtain a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury in order to save the union too. Whatever are they trying to tell the slave states today? You are so full of shit. Amazingly, after the Civil War, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment stated that the 14th was needed precisely because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. Indeed, was John Bingham "attempting to save the Union by telling the slave States what they insisted hearing?" In 1871. And why was he so down on the racist assholes on Illinois? Had he read the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln and discovered what old Abe had actually said? Bingham sure was clear and specific about the Illinois assholes. But at least he didn't delve into Illinois' 99-year indentured servitude. But why was Bingham saying these things in 1871? To perpetuate your myth that Madison lied when he said the BoR did not aply to the States, and the unanimous Supreme Court lied when they said the same thing, as you say, "attempting to save the Union by telling the slave States what they insisted hearing"? Representative John Bingham Representative John Bingham and Senator Jacob Howard were co-authors of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. app. 84 (1871) "The amendments [to the Constitution] contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."—7 Peters, p. 250. In this case the city had taken private property for public use, without compensation as alleged, and there was no redress for the wrong in the Supreme Court of the United States; and only for this reason, the first eight amendments were not limitations on the power of the States. And so afterward, in the case of the Lessee of Livingston vs. Moore and others, (7 Peters, 652,) the court ruled, "it is now settled that the amendments [to the Constitution] do not extend to the States." They were but limitations upon Congress. [...] In reëxamining that case of Barron, Mr. Speaker, after my struggle in the House in February, 1866, to which the gentleman has alluded, I noted and apprehended as I never did before, certain words in that opinion of Marshall. Referring to the first eight articles of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Chief Justice said: "Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention." Barron vs. The Mayor, &c, 7 Peters, 250. Acting upon this suggestion I did imitate the framers of the original Constitution. As they had said "no State shall emit bills of credit, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts imitating their example and imitating it to the letter, I prepared the provision of the first section of the fourteenth amendment as it stands in the Constitution, as follows: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person office, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I hope the gentleman now knows why I changed the form of the amendment of February, 1866. Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows: Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article II. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Article III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, he quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in the manner to be prescribed by law. Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Article 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 eases 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 on 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. Article VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Article VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Article VIII.. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines, imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. These eight articles I have shown never "were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make. Mr. Speaker, that decision in the fourth of Washington's Circuit Court Reports, to which my learned colleague [Mr. Shellabarger] has referred is only a construction of the second section, fourth article of the original Constitution, to wit, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." In that case the court only held that in civil rights the State could not refuse to extend to citizens of other States the same general rights secured to its own. In the case of The United States vs. Primrose, Mr. Webster said that— "For the purposes of trade, it is evidently not in the power of any State to impose any hinderance or embarrassment, &c, upon citizens of other States, or to place them, on coming there, upon a different footing from her own citizens."—6 Webster's Works, 112. The learned Justice Story declared that— "The intention of the clause ('the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,') was to confer on the citizens of each State a general citizenship, and communicated all the privileges and immunities which a citizen of the same State would be entitled to under the same circumstances." — Story on the Constitution, vol. 2, page 605. Is it not clear that other and different privileges and immunities than those to which a citizen of a State was entitled are secured by the provision of the fourteenth article, that no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are defined in the eight articles of amendment, and which were not limitations on the power of the States before the fourteenth amendment made them limitations? Sir, before the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, the State could deny to any citizen the right of trial by jury, and it was done. Before that the State could abridge the freedom of the press, and it was so done in half of the States of the Union. Before that a State, as in the case of the State of Illinois, could make it a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment for any citizen within her limits, in obedience to the injunction of our divine Master, to help a slave who was ready to perish; to give him shelter, or break with him his crust of bread. The validity of that State restriction upon the rights of conscience and the duty of life was affirmed, to the shame and disgrace of America, in the Supreme Court of the United States; but nevertheless affirmed in obedience to the requirements of the Constitution. (14 Howard, 19-20. Moore vs. The People.) Under the Constitution as it is, not as it was, and by force of the fourteenth amendment, no State hereafter can imitate the bad example of Illinois, to which I have referred, nor can any State ever repeat the example of Georgia and send men to the penitentiary, as did that State, for teaching the Indian to read the lessons of the New Testament, to know that new evangel, "The pure in heart shall see God."
I have always provided, and wish to assure you, that I will always provide you with the all civility and courtesy you deserve. Belied by your foul mouth just above. Not at all. You were surely provided all the civility and courtesy you deserve. You are just one of those loons who feels entitled.
The UNANIMOUS U.S. SUPREME COURT in Barron v. Baltimore were attempting to save the Union by telling the slave States what they insisted hearing. -- It worked, --- for a while. You bet, as the question of slavery was a main issue long before the war started. You are a fucking idiot. (Actually you just post make believe fiction to be a pain in the ass, but I like to call you a fucking idiot for doing it.) You suppose erroneously. It's just not an issue, despite your obsession about it. Yep, that was the common misconception. -- So the 14th was passed, but still weirdos like you kept insisting that States could ignore gun rights, etc. -- We're still trying to educate you socialistic statists, with little success. No, he was trying to make sure our individual freedoms were not infringed. -- Clowns like you are still working against that principle.
per a like one keep love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I'm beating on your sorry ass so bad, could you please affirm that you are over 12 years old. I don't want anyone to accuse me of child abuse. [tpaine #39] Read below: --- "on a presentment or indictment". Here, tpaine got caught bullshitting that States used a presentment rather than a Grand Jury, per the 5th amendment. As I documented at #40, to which tpain has never responded, he only documented that he was too ignorant to know that a presentment is made by a grand jury, and he was too lazy to look up a word he did not know. In fact, States typically use an information which is filed without reference to any grand jury or an indictment. It is filed by a competent public officer on his oath rather than by a grand jury on their oath. [tpaine #79] You suppose erroneously. It's just not an issue, despite your obsession about it. Now, the stupid shithead chooses to make believe States are not bound by the Fifth Amendment "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" requirement because "[i]t's just not an issue." That's one way to say he had his ass handed to him. Again. Originally, NONE of the Bill of Rights applied to the States. After the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court has selectively incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment and made them applicable to the States. The Fifth Amendment "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" requirement has never been so incorporated and has never applied to the States. FIFTH AMENDMENT for tpaine and other Idiots Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and the subsequent selective incorporation of portions of the Bill of Rights. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest. tpaine hilariously argues that amendments to the Constitution can be unconstitutional, and the the entire Bill of Rights has always applied to the States since it was ratified in 1791. Of course, only a fucking idiot could look at it and make such an imbecilic argument. FIRST AMENDMENT for tpaine and other Idiots or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Congress shall make no law. The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition. Law Dictionary, Second Edition, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., Steven F. Gifis Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition Congress refers specifically to the two Federal legislative bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The First Amendment specifically and explicitly states that the United States or Federal Congress may pass no law such as those specified. It has no applicability whatsoever to any State government. It now has indirect applicability via the 14th Amendment. Only a fucking idiot, such as tpaine, could make believe that "Congress shall make no law," in the words of the First Amendment, was speaking to State governments. As John Bingham stated in congressional debate on the floor of the House, in justification of the need for the 14th Amendment, "These eight articles I have shown never 'were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment.' . . . Sir, before ratification of the fourteenth amendment . . . the State could abridge the freedom of the press, and it was so done in half the States of the Union." Of course, it does not end at the First Amendment. The Seventh Amendment has never been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and the States are free to ignore it as it has never applied to them. Let me review it and let tpaine look at it for the first time in his life. SEVENTH AMENDMENT FOR tpaine and other IDIOTS In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Every time tpaine has a pissing contest, and the value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars, tpaine hallucinates he is entitled to a jury trial. Heard of Small Claims Court, you fucking idiot? The Seventh Amendment does not apply and control State court procedures, and has never applied to or controled State court procedures. It is part of the Bill of Rights but it does not apply to the States. Your bullshit is just bullshit. When faced with reality, it falls apart. Law Dictionary, Second Edition, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., Steven F. Gifis Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2013/title-28/part-v/chapter-111/section-1652/ State laws as rules of decision - 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (2013) §1652. State laws as rules of decision The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944.) HISTORICAL REVISION NOTES Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §725 (R.S. §721). "Civil actions" was substituted for "trials at common law" to clarify the meaning of the Rules of Decision Act in the light of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such Act has been held to apply to suits in equity. Changes were made in phraseology. Edwards v Elliott, 88 US 532 (1874) Two answers may be made to that objection, either of which is decisive: (1) That it does not apply to trials in the state courts. [Footnote 17] (2) That no such error was assigned in the Court of Errors, and that the question was not presented to, nor was it decided by, the Court of Errors. - - - - - [Footnote 17] Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 247; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 326; Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 551; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 76; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 2d ed. 19. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1875) So far as we can discover from the record, the only Federal question decided by either one of the courts below was that which related to the right of Walker to demand a trial by jury, notwithstanding the provisions of the act of 1871 to the contrary. He insisted that he had a constitutional right to such a trial, and that the statute was void to the extent that it deprived him of this right. All questions arising under the Constitution of the State alone are finally settled by the judgment below. We can consider only such as grow out of the Constitution of the United States. By art. 7 of the amendments, it is provided, that "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." This, as has been many times decided, relates only to trials in the courts of the United States. Edwards v. Elliot, 21 Wall. 557. The States, so far as this amendment is concerned, are left to regulate trials in their own courts in their own way. A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in the State courts is not, therefore, a privilege or immunity of national citizenship, which the States are forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to abridge. A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken L. I. Co., 18 How. 280. Due process of law is process due according to the law of the land. This process in the States is regulated by the law of the State. Our power over that law is only to determine whether it is in conflict with the supreme law of the land, — that is to say, with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, — or with any treaty made under the authority of the United States. Art. 6 Const. Here the State court has decided that the proceeding below was in accordance with the law of the State; and we do not find that to be contrary to the Constitution, or any law or treaty of the United States. The other questions presented by the assignment of errors and argued here cannot be considered, as the record does not show that they were brought to the attention of either of the courts below. Judgment affirmed. MR. JUSTICE FIELD and MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD dissented from the opinion and judgment of the court. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) [14] See Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90, 92 (1876). http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732 Of course, for the best hilarity, tpaine previously argued that an amendment to the Constitution which did not meet with his approval would be unconstitutional. He attempted to buttress his idiotic argument by citing the losing argument of Elihu Root against the 18th Amendment on prohibition. But Root had not only lost, but he had argued that it was an ordinary piece of legislation and not an amendment at all. Of course, the Congress is only empowered to legislate pursuant to the Constitution, and any amendment is part of the Constitution. And the judiciary is no help. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/258/126/case.html Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922) Page 258 U. S. 127 MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. On July 7, 1920, Charles S. Fairchild, of New York, brought this suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The prayers of the bill are that "the so-called Suffrage Amendment [the Nineteenth to the federal Constitution] be declared unconstitutional and void;" that the Secretary of State be restrained from issuing any proclamation declaring that it has been ratified, and that the Attorney General be restrained from enforcing it. There is also a prayer for general relief and for an interlocutory injunction. The plaintiff and others on whose behalf he sues are citizens of the United States, taxpayers, and members of the American Constitutional League, a voluntary association which describes itself as engaged in diffusing "knowledge as to the fundamental principles of the American Constitution, and especially that which gives to each state the right to determine for itself the question as to who should exercise the elective franchise therein." The claim to relief was rested upon the following allegations: the legislatures of 34 of the states have passed resolutions purporting to ratify the Suffrage Amendment, and from one other state the Secretary of the United States has received a certificate to that effect purporting to come from the proper officer. The proposed amendment cannot, for reasons stated, be made a part of the Constitution through ratification by the legislatures, and there are also specific reasons why the resolutions already adopted in several of the states are inoperative. But the Secretary has declared that he is 258 U. S. 128 without power to examine into the validity of alleged acts of ratification, and that, upon receiving from one additional state the customary certificate, he will issue a proclamation declaring that the Suffrage Amendment has been adopted. Furthermore, "a force bill" has been introduced in the Senate, which provides fine and imprisonment for any person who refuses to allow women to vote, and if the bill is enacted, the Attorney General will be required to enforce its provisions. The threatened proclamation of the adoption of the amendment would not be conclusive of its validity, but it would lead election officers to permit women to vote in states whose Constitutions limit suffrage to men. This would prevent ascertainment of the wishes of the legally qualified voters, and elections, state and federal, would be void. Free citizens would be deprived of their right to have such elections duly held, the effectiveness of their votes would be diminished, and election expenses would be nearly doubled. Thus, irremediable mischief would result. The Supreme Court of the District granted a rule to show cause why an interlocutory injunction should not issue. The return was promptly made, and the defendants also moved to dismiss the bill. On July 14, 1920, the rule was discharged, a decree was entered dismissing the bill, and an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals of the District. The Secretary, having soon thereafter received a certificate of ratification from the thirty-sixth state, proclaimed, on August 26, 1920, the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. The defendants then moved to dismiss or affirm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, on the authority of United States v. Colby, 49 App.D.C. 358, 265 F. 998, where it had refused to compel the Secretary to cancel the proclamation declaring that the Eighteenth Amendment had been adopted. The grounds of that decision were that the validity of the amendment could be in no way affected by an order 258 U. S. 129 of cancellation; that it depended on the ratifications by the states, and not on the proclamation, and that the proclamation was unimpeachable, since the Secretary was required, under Revised Statutes, § 205, to issue the proclamation upon receiving from three-fourths of the states official notice of ratification, and had no power to determine whether or not the notices received stated the truth. But we have no occasion to consider these grounds of decision. Plaintiff's alleged interest in the question submitted is not such as to afford a basis for this proceeding. It is frankly a proceeding to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared void. In form it is a bill in equity; but it is not a case, within the meaning of § 2 of Article III of the Constitution, which confers judicial power on the federal courts, for no claim of plaintiff is "brought before the court[s] for determination by such regular proceedings as are established by law or custom for the protection or enforcement of rights, or the prevention, redress, or punishment of wrongs." See In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. 241, 255, quoted in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 219 U. S. 357. The alleged wrongful act of the Secretary of State said to be threatening is the issuing of a proclamation which plaintiff asserts will be vain, but will mislead election officers. The alleged wrongful act of the Attorney General said to be threatening is the enforcement, as against election officers, of the penalties to be imposed by a contemplated act of Congress which plaintiff asserts would be unconstitutional. But plaintiff is not an election officer, and the State of New York, of which he is a citizen, had previously amended its own Constitution so as to grant the suffrage to women, and had ratified this amendment. Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted. Obviously this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute in the 258 U. S. 130 federal courts a suit to secure by indirection a determination whether a statute, if passed, or a constitutional amendment about to be adopted will be valid. Compare Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475; Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U. S. 405. Decree affirmed. As for the Natural Law bullshit that tpaine likes to make believe is in the Constitution, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke to that. While the Declaration of Independence, which was never law, spoke loftily about inalienable rights, the Constitution, which is law, dealt with reality. Oliver Wendell Holmes The Harvard Law Review 1918 It is not enough for the knight of romance that you agree that his lady is a very nice girl—if you do not admit that she is the best that God ever made or will make, you must fight. There is in all men a demand for the superlative, so much so that the poor devil who has no other way of reaching it attains it by getting drunk. It seems to me that this demand is at the bottom of the philosopher’s effort to prove that truth is absolute and of the jurist’s search for criteria of universal validity which he collects under the head of natural law. I used to say when I was young, that truth was the majority vote of that nation that could lick all others. Certainly we may expect that the received opinion about the present war will depend a good deal upon which side wins (I hope with all my soul it will be mine), and I think that the statement was correct insofar as it implied that our test of truth is a reference to either a present or an imagined future majority in favor of our view. If … the truth may be defined as the system of my (intellectual) limitations, what gives it objectivity is the fact that I find my fellow man to a greater or less extent (never wholly) subject to the same Can’t Helps. If I think that I am sitting at a table I find that the other persons present agree with me; so if I say that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles. If I am in a minority of one they send for a doctor or lock me up; and I am so far able to transcend the to me convincing testimony of my sense or my reason as to recognize that if I am alone probably something is wrong with my works. Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so. If I may quote myself again, property, friendship, and truth have a common root in time. One cannot be wrenched from the rocky crevices into which one has grown for many years without feeling that one is attacked in one’s life. What we most love and revere generally is determined by early associations. I love granite rocks and barberry bushes, no doubt because with them were my earliest joys that reach back through the past eternity of my life. But while one’s experience thus makes certain preferences dogmatic for oneself, recognition of how they came to be so leaves one able to see that others, poor souls, may be equally dogmatic about something else. And this again means skepticism. Not that one’s belief or love does not remain. Not that we would not fight and die for it if important—we all, whether we know it or not, are fighting to make the kind of a world that we should like—but that we have learned to recognize that others will fight and die to make a different world, with equal sincerity or belief. Deep-seated preferences cannot be argued about—you cannot argue a man into liking a glass of beer—and therefore, when differences are sufficiently far reaching, we try to kill the other man rather than let him have his way. But that is perfectly consistent with admitting that, so far as appears, his grounds are just as good as ours. The jurists who believe in natural law seem to me to be in that naïve state of mind that accepts what has been familiar and accepted by all men everywhere. No doubt it is true that, so far as we can see ahead, some arrangements and the rudiments of familiar institutions seem to be necessary elements in any society that may spring from our own and that would seem to us to be civilized—some form of permanent association between the sexes—some residue of property individually owned—some mode of binding oneself to specified future conduct—at the bottom of all, some protection for the person. But without speculating whether a group is imaginable in which all but the last of these might disappear and the last be subject to qualifications that most of us would abhor, the question remains as to the Ought of natural law. It is true that beliefs and wishes have a transcendental basis in the sense that their foundation is arbitrary. You cannot help entertaining and feeling them, and there is an end of it. As an arbitrary fact people wish to live, and we say with various degrees of certainty that they can do so only on certain conditions. To do it they must eat and drink. That necessity is absolute. It is a necessity of less degree but practically general that they should live in society. If they live in society, so far as we can see, there are further conditions. Reason working on experience does tell us, no doubt, that if our wish to live continues, we can do it only on those terms. But that seems to me the whole of the matter. I see no a priori duty to live with others and in that way, but simply a statement of what I must do if I wish to remain alive. If I do live with others they tell me that I must do and abstain from doing various things or they will put the screws on to me. I believe that they will, and being of the same mind as to their conduct I not only accept the rules but come in time to accept them with sympathy and emotional affirmation and begin to talk about duties and rights. But for legal purposes a right is only the hypostasis of a prophecy—the imagination of a substance supporting the fact that the public force will be brought to bear upon those who do things said to contravene it—just as we talk of the force of gravitation accounting for the conduct of bodies in space. One phrase adds no more than the other to what we know without it. No doubt behind these legal rights is the fighting will of the subject to maintain them, and the spread of his emotions to the general rules by which they are maintained; but that does not seem to me the same thing as the supposed a priori discernment of a duty or the assertion of a preexisting right. A dog will fight for his bone. The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want. [...]
Do Make love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Historical note: The Federalists originally held the presidency, the legislature, and all seats on the Supreme Court. After the Adams administration, the Federalists were thrashed in every election until they went extinct around 1820. In 1833, Marshall was the only justice on the court nominated by a Federalist (Adams). No Washington appointees were left. CIRCA 1791: [tpaine #75] Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States. Madison shaded/compromised the truth (that the BOR'S applied to States) in order to get the slave States to ratify. Sometimes you just wonder why did did all that lying but Washington, Jefferson, and Madison didn't just set their slaves free. Maybe we wouldn't have a Declaration of Independence if Jupiter had not kept tom supplied with mint juleps or sweet tea. CIRCA 1833 [tpaine at #79] You bet, as the question of slavery was a main issue long before the war started. TODAY [tpaine at #79] You suppose erroneously. It's just not an issue, despite your obsession about it. Because, at this point, what difference does it make! The states can try, convict and sentence to death without a grand jury. Hurtado v California, 110 US 516 (1884) Of course, the States also ignore the 7th Amendment wholesale, disregarding the Federal requirement for a jury trial in suits at common law (civil suits) where the amount in controversy is more than $20. They have been ignoring that non-requirement for more than two centuries. THE POST CIVIL WAR ERA I have quoted John Bingham extensively stating that the original Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and this was what necessitated the Fourteenth Amendment of which Bingham was a co-author. tpaine seems at a loss to explain whether Bingham was just lying in 1866 and 1872, or it just was not an issue. It seems unlikely he ws lying in 1872 in order to get slave states to ratify anything. And a fine thing it was, all that worrying about slavery. None of that for Illinois. No, sir. They were civilized. They had ninety-nine year indentured servitude. http://www.eiu.edu/past_tracker/1818_Indenture_Transcription.pdf
Comments (84 - 164) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestStates are bound to honor our Constitution and its amendments, as specified in the document itself, and they always have been.
As you (falsely) claim that the whole Bill of Rights applies, and has always applied, to the States,
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?
#19. To: Roscoe, ConservingFreedom (#15)
Quote one Framer contending that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to control county zoning laws, ignoramus.
(b) The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermathfundamentally altered the federal system.
(d) The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33.
Roscoe --- Quote one Framer contending that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to control county zoning laws, ignoramus.
Nolu Chan. ---- The 14th Amendment did not exist in the times of the Framers. In their time the entire BoR only applied to the Federal Government.
See MacDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), Syllabus at 2: --- (b) The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermath fundamentally altered the federal system.
County zoning laws which unduly infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights are unconstitutional.
#45. To: nolu chan (#44)
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?
As I said at my #19: "County zoning laws which unduly infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights are unconstitutional."
#46. To: buckeroo, y'all (#42)
Of course. --- Anyone arguing the point is a mere simpleton.
#47. To: tpaine (#45)
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?
-- Which does NOT MEAN that a State like California can ignore the 2nd Amendment.
As I said at my #19: "County zoning laws which unduly infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights are unconstitutional."
Other than that, you really should try to find another hobby. - - Constitutional law certainly seems to be causing you to become overwrought.
#48. To: tpaine, buckeroo (#46)
States are bound to honor our Constitution and its amendments, as specified in the document itself, and they always have been.
#49. To: nolu chan (#47)
As I said at my #19: "County zoning laws which unduly infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights are unconstitutional."
The 2nd Amendment was fully incorporated in 2010 by McDonald. In 1791, it did not apply at all to States. Good to see that on that point, we agree.
Oh noes. I wouldn't think of it. You are not good for much but slapping around for amusement. Keep providing amusement, you are doing a fine impression of a hit me doll. Unfortunately, you do not know shit about the law and it is painfully obvious. I will try to make it as painfully obvious as posssible. ---- IF, AS YOU MAINTAIN, THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLIES, AND HAS ALWAYS APPLIED TO THE STATES, WHY HAVE THE STATES ALWAYS BEEN FREE TO IGNORE THE GRAND JURY REQUIREMENT OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.
#50. To: tpaine (#49)
The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance. - They, (and you) are losing.
It is not enough for the knight of romance that you agree that his lady is a very nice girl—if you do not admit that she is the best that God ever made or will make, you must fight. There is in all men a demand for the superlative, so much so that the poor devil who has no other way of reaching it attains it by getting drunk. It seems to me that this demand is at the bottom of the philosopher’s effort to prove that truth is absolute and of the jurist’s search for criteria of universal validity which he collects under the head of natural law.
During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.
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.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Originally, the protections of the Bill of Rights applied only to infringements of liberty by the federal government (see Barron v. Baltimore [1833]) (discussed and reprinted in Volume II, chapter 1). However, the Fourteenth Amendment created a constitutional basis for the application of the Bill of Rights to state action.
The Bill of Rights originally guaranteed individual liberties only against the federal government. The proposal of the Bill of Rights was part of a political compromise designed to enlist support for ratification from Anti-Federalists who did not trust the enumeration of powers in the federal Constitution to serve as a sufficient check on the new national autority. Express checks on arbitrary exercises of authority were meant to add an external check to government of enumerated and thus limited powers. While Article I, § 10 imposed a handful of express prohibitions on state action, nothing in the first eight Amendments expressly constrained the states, and the 10th Amendment expressly reiterated that powers not delegated to the United States were reserved to the States.
The issue arose early in American history as to whether the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments. The Supreme Court definitively answered that question in the following case.
C. THE INCORPORATION DOCTRINE
§ 11-2. Selective Incorporation of Bill of Rights Safeguards as a Partial Answer
B. BILL OF RIGHTS
#51. To: tpaine (#40)
#52. To: nolu chan (#50)
The 2nd Amendment was fully incorporated in 2010 by McDonald. In 1791, it did not apply at all to States. Good to see that on that point, we agree.
Oh noes. I wouldn't think of it. You are not good for much but slapping around for amusement. Keep providing amusement, you are doing a fine impression of a hit me doll. Unfortunately, you do not know shit about the law and it is painfully obvious. I will try to make it as painfully obvious as posssible. ---- IF, AS YOU MAINTAIN, THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLIES, AND HAS ALWAYS APPLIED TO THE STATES, WHY HAVE THE STATES ALWAYS BEEN FREE TO IGNORE THE GRAND JURY REQUIREMENT OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.
But ------- you are unable to explain why your bullshit theory of the constitution has been ignored for 215 years and counting.
tpaine #40, imaginary constitutional law.
Only an idiot, such as tpaine, could find an amendment to the Constitution to be unconstitutional.
As for the whole Bill of Rights, ---
The 2nd Amendment was fully incorporated in 2010 by McDonald. In 1791, it did not apply at all to States.
The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance. - They, (and you) are losing.
#53. To: tpaine (#52)
The 2nd has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance. - They, (and you) are losing.
4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection, existed long before the adoption of the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. It left the authority of the States unimpaired, added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States, and guaranteed the continuance of the right only against Congressional interference. The people, for their protection in the enjoyment of it, must therefore look to the States, where the power for that purpose was originally placed.
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.
#54. To: nolu chan (#53)
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.
#55. To: tpaine (#54)
The Cruikshank OPINION above, claims that local police are not "restrained by the Constitution of the United States."?
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.
There is then no collision between the law in question and the acts of Congress just commented on, and therefore, if the state law were to be considered as partaking of the nature of a commercial regulation, it would stand the test of the most rigid scrutiny if tried by the standard laid down in the reasoning of the Court quoted from the case of Gibbons v. Ogden.
#56. To: tpaine (#40)
#57. To: nolu chan (#55)
Typical asshole quote out of context.
That a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. ----- That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained, and that consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.
#58. To: tpaine (#57)
The Cruikshank OPINION above, claims that local police are not "restrained by the Constitution of the United States."?
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.
It is next contended, that the acts of 1806 and 1807 are unconstitutional and void, because contrary to the ninth section of the Pennsylvania bill of rights, which provides, in the words of magna charta, that no one shall be deprived of his property but by the laws of the land.
#59. To: tpaine (#40)
#60. To: nolu chan (#58)
Here is another U.S. Supreme Court opinion explicitly saying tpaine is a clueless gasbag. The hits just keep on coming. --- Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-52 (1833) ----- -- As to the amendments of the constitution of the United States, they must be put out of the case; since it is now settled that those amendments do not extend to the states:
#61. To: tpaine (#60)
You mean your demented postings of arcane 'opinions' just keep on coming..
#40. To: tpaine (#39)
Read below: --- "on a presentment or indictment".
Presentment. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment is an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself, and in effect instruction that an indictment be drawn. U.S. v. Briggs, C.A.Fla., 514 F.2d 794, 804. A written accusation of crime made and returned by the grand jury upon its own initiative in the exercise of its lawful inquisitorial powers, is in the form of a bill of indictment, and in practice is signed individually by all the grand jurors who return it. See State v. Hudson, 487 Tenn.Cr.Ap S.W.2d 672, 674. See also Indictment; Information; Presenter.
States don't ignore it; -- they are empowered to use their own version of 'a presentment'.
Stages of the Criminal Trial
Facts of the case
U.S. Supreme Court
#62. To: nolu chan (#61)
Of course, centuries of U.S. Supreme Court opinions are demented. Only tpaine is sane.
#63. To: tpaine (#62)
You mean your demented postings of arcane 'opinions' just keep on coming..
"[W]hatever may [have been] the form which the several States . . . adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights," James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, tells us,
#64. To: nolu chan, a supporter of statist prohibitionists, is obsessed with his anti-constitutionalism. (#63)
It is demented tpaine who has demonstrated he is incapable of explaining why states have never been required to use a presentment or indictment of a grand jury as required by Amendment 5 for the Federal government.
After all, he is the jackass who insists that the entire Bill of Rights has always applied to the States, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
#65. To: tpaine (#64)
No mountain of evidence exists, just a a pile of opinions by pre civil war slave statists and after by Jim Crow democrats, followed by gun and drug war prohibitionists.
U.S. Supreme Court
"[W]hatever may [have been] the form which the several States . . . adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights," James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, tells us,
The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights.
#66. To: nolu chan (#65)
»» James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, tells us, "This great object in view [was] to limit and qualify the powers of [the Federal] Government by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular moment.----- Yes, per tpaine, James Madison was a pre-civil war slave statist who did not understand what the Bill of Rights was about.
#67. To: tpaine (#66)
James Madison, Gales & Seatons History of the Debates in Congress, June 9, 1789, pp. 453-54
The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights.
Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States.
Mr. BINGHAM. Yes, sir, in the debate. A gentleman on the other side interrupted me and wanted to know if I could cite a decision showing that the power of the Federal Government to enforce in the United States courts the bill of rights under the articles of amendment to the Constitution had been denied. I answered that I was prepared to introduce such decisions; and that is exactly what makes plain the necessity of adopting this amendment.
#68. To: nolu chan (#67)
You are clearly a bigoted ---- -----. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The world needs bigoted ---- ----- to laugh at.
Let us not forget that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and Illinois, the Land o' Lincoln, proudly replaced slavery with 99-year indentured servitude and among the strictest Black laws in the country. Indeed, after slavery ended in the South, the 13th Amendment was needed to end slavery in the Union states where it persisted.
Onward and upward at demonstrating the scope of your --- holery in denying that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and characterizing James Madison as a liar when he said that.
Representative John Bingham and Senator Jacob Howard were co- authors, Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. They should have known why a Fourteenth Amendment was necessary, and that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. ---- Representative John Bingham, House of Representatives, 28 February 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1089-90: ---- Mr. BINGHAM. Yes, sir, in the debate. A gentleman on the other side interrupted me and wanted to know if I could cite a decision showing that the power of the Federal Government to enforce in the United States courts the bill of rights under the articles of amendment to the Constitution had been denied. I answered that I was prepared to introduce such decisions; and that is exactly what makes plain the necessity of adopting this amendment.
#69. To: tpaine (#68)
I answer the gentleman, how I came to change the form of February to the words now in the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment, as they stand, and I trust will forever stand, in the Constitution of my country. I had read—and that is what induced me to attempt to impose by constitutional amendments new limitations upon the power of the States—the great decision of Marshall in Barron vs. the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, wherein the Chief Justice said, in obedience to his official oath and the Constitution as it then was:
#70. To: nolu chan (#69)
Yes, per tpaine, James Madison was a pre-civil war slave statist who did not understand what the Bill of Rights was about.
You allege he told a deliberate untruth to deceive others. That is what a lie is. A lie is told by a liar. That would be you. Madison told the truth.
Damn, you are one stupid asshole.
#71. To: tpaine (#70)
Just yesterday, our leader asked for a bit more civility.
#72. To: GrandIsland (#71)
But he never asked anyone to lie. ---- lol
Damn, you are one stupid asshole.
#73. To: tpaine, GrandIsland (#70)
Of course Madison knew what they were about, -- but even he, (a slave owner) said that in order to 'sell' the BOR'S to the slave States.
Petitioner
John Barron ex rel. Tiernan
Mayor of Baltimore
None
Marshall Court (1830-1834)
32 US 243 (1833)
Feb 8 - 11, 1833
Feb 16, 1833 Decision for Mayor of Baltimore
Just yesterday, our leader asked for a bit more civility. Do you feel exempt?
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
No. I have always provided, and wish to assure you, that I will always provide you with the all civility and courtesy you deserve.
#75. To: nolu chan (#73)
No, --- Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and co-author of the Federalist Papers, told them the truth that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. ---- The Supreme Court contained one (1) nominee of Adams, one (1) of Jefferson, two (2) of Madison, two (2) of Monroe, and one (1) of Jackson, when it decided the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. ----- The opinion of the Court was UNANIMOUS. Every Justice in 1833, including those appointed by Madison, agreed with Madison and found that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. --- Do tell, were all the Supreme Court Justices still carrying on with your fairy tale of an alleged Madison white lie, or plain outrageous lie to deceive the people into ratifying eight constitutional amendments? ---- Why, 1833, were all the Supreme Court justices perpetuating what you call a white lie by Madison as a Framer of the Bill of Rights? Why did the seven justices unanimously lie in 1833?
#76. To: nolu chan (#73)
No. I have always provided, and wish to assure you, that I will always provide you with the all civility and courtesy you deserve.
#77. To: tpaine (#75)
Because they [the UNANIMOUS U.S. SUPREME COURT in Barron v. Baltimore] were attempting to save the Union by telling the slave States what they insisted hearing. -- It worked, --- for a while.
Before that [ratification of the 14th Amendment] a State, as in the case of the State of Illinois, could make it a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment for any citizen within her limits, in obedience to the injunction of our divine Master, to help a slave who was ready to perish; to give him shelter, or break with him his crust of bread.
I answer the gentleman, how I came to change the form of February to the words now in the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment, as they stand, and I trust will forever stand, in the Constitution of my country. I had read—and that is what induced me to attempt to impose by constitutional amendments new limitations upon the power of the States—the great decision of Marshall in Barron vs. the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, wherein the Chief Justice said, in obedience to his official oath and the Constitution as it then was:
#78. To: tpaine (#76)
#79. To: nolu chan (#77)
In 1833?
I suppose that the States, today, are allowed to ignore the 5th Amendment requirement to obtain a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury in order to save the union too.
Amazingly, after the Civil War, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment stated that the 14th was needed precisely because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States.
Indeed, was John Bingham "attempting to save the Union by telling the slave States what they insisted hearing?" In 1871.
#80. To: Roscoe (#17)
And the non sequitur award of the day goes to hondo68.
usual
one
bat
chirp
the
rest
of
the
bat
clan
crazies
good
zitka
virus
will
clean
the
cave
America
skies
clear
great
again
boris
#81. To: tpaine (#79)
[nc #38] As you (falsely) claim that the whole Bill of Rights applies, and has always applied, to the States, 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.
[nc #77] I suppose that the States, today, are allowed to ignore the 5th Amendment requirement to obtain a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury in order to save the union too.
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.
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
congress n. 1 The national legislative body of a country. (Congress) that national legislative body of the U.S., meeting at the Capitol om Washington, D.C.
CONGRESS a formal body of delegates; in American law, the national legislative body consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Congressman. Strictly, a member of the Congress of the United States. But the common tendency is to apply this term only to a member of the House of Representatives, as distinguished from a senator.
Amendment VII
SMALL CLAIMS COURT a court of limited jurisdiction, usually able to adjudicate claims of $500 or less, depending on statute. Proceedings are less formal tha in other types of corts and parties usually represent themselves.
Small claims court. A special court (sometimes also called "Conciliation Court") which provides expeditious, informal, and inexpensive adudication of small claims. Jurisdiction of such courts is usually limited to colection of small debts and accounts. Proceedings are very informal with parties normally representing themselves. These courts of limited jurisdiction are often divisions or departments of courts of general jurisdiction.
Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Part V - PROCEDURE (§§ 1651 - 2113)
Chapter 111 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 1651 - 1659)
Section 1652 - State laws as rules of decision Objection is also taken to the validity of the state law upon the ground that it is in conflict with the provision of the federal Constitution which secures to every party, where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The Seventh Amendment, which governs proceedings in federal court, but not in state court,[14] bears not only on the allocation of trial functions between judge and jury, the issue in Byrd; it also controls the allocation of authority to review verdicts, the issue of concern here. The Amendment reads:
U.S. Supreme Court
Natural Law
#82. To: nolu chan (#81)
you
still
believe
obomba
is
a
natural
born
citizen
America
constitutional
great
again
boris
#83. To: tpaine (#79)
The UNANIMOUS U.S. SUPREME COURT in Barron v. Baltimore were attempting to save the Union by telling the slave States what they insisted hearing. -- It worked, --- for a while.
In 1833?
I suppose that the States, today, are allowed to ignore the 5th Amendment requirement to obtain a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury in order to save the union too.
This Indenture made this twenty sixth day of Jane uary one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, between Judith a Negroe Woman about seventeen years of age, last of the Territory of Missouri and County of ___ of the one part, and William Wilson of Pope Coun'ty of Illinois Territory of the other part Witnesseth. That the said Judith for and in consideration of four hundred Dollars Current money of the United States, at or before the signing and Delivery of these presents, the Receipt whereof she doth hereby acknowledge, and in conformity to a law of this Territory, respecting the Introduction of Negroes and Mullatoes into the same, hath put, placed and bound herself to the said William Wilson to serve him during the full Term of ninety nine years from the date hereof; or in other words, from the date hereof until the twenty sixth day of January one thousand nine hundred and seventeen; during all which term the said Judith the said William Wilson shall well and truly serve, and all his lawful commands every where obey, and that she shall not embezel or waste her said Masters Goods, nor lend them to any person without her said Masters leave or consent, nor shall she at any time, absent herself from her said Master,s service without his leave or consent, but as a good and faithful Servant, shall and will at all times demean herself towards her said Master. And the said William Wilson covenants and agrees to and with the said Judith that he will furnish her with good and sufficient Meat Dring lodging and Apparel, together with all other needful Comforts and conveniencies fit for such a Servant during the Term aforesaid. And for the true performance of each of the above Agreements, each of the beforementioned para ties, bind themselves to each other firmly by these presents. In testimony where of the said parties have set their hands and affixed their seals the day and year first above written.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]