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

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: The passing of CallliiProp. 63 is a violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment i Source: email URL Source: [None] Published: Nov 14, 2016 Author: email Post Date: 2016-11-14 20:11:21 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 6603 Comments: 27 ll The passing of California bill 63 is a violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Note that the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, had included the 2nd Amendment in his official examples of amendments that 14A applied to the states. (See middle area of 2nd column of referenced page.) "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." — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: tpaine (#0) Sorry to be off topic, but I am curious about your health since I havn't seen you post in awhile. Are you OK? buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-14   20:15:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: buckeroo (#1) Sorry to be off topic, but I am curious about your health since I havn't seen you post in awhile. Are you OK? I've been fine, doing some traveling. -- It's been good to get away from some of the clown society for awhile. -- Thanks for asking, how you doing? tpaine  posted on  2016-11-14   20:28:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: tpaine (#2) This is good news, tpaine. buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-14   20:47:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: tpaine (#0) The passing of California bill 63 is a violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Yet you still willingly live there and reward your states government by paying some of the highest property tax rates in the country... buy hey, you liberal douche bags got recreational weed. Now when you're all bummed that you can't own guns, you can get really fucking high. lol That's makes you a retard. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-11-14   22:43:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: tpaine (#0) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_63,_Background_Checks_for_Ammunition_Purchases_and_Large-Capacity_Ammunition_Magazine_Ban_(2016) California Proposition 63 - Summary http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0098%20%28Firearms%29_0.pdf California Proposition 63 - Full Text nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-15   1:18:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: tpaine, civilwarbuff (#0) Note that the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, had included the 2nd Amendment in his official examples of amendments that 14A applied to the states. (See middle area of 2nd column of referenced page.) "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." — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe John Bingham and House Debate on the Fourteenth Amendment by nolu chan July 20, 2009 Congressional Globe, U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1866, page 1033 Rep. John Bingham speaking. The is the proposed Fourteenth Amendment as originally drafted and submitted to Congress by John Bingham. It would have given very broad powers to Congress. This died for lack of support. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. Mr. BINGHAM, from the select joint committee on reconstruction, reported back a joint resolution (H. R. No. 63) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The joint resolution was read, as follows: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of said Constitution, namely: Article —. The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property. Compare Bingham's original phrasing with what finally passed as part of Section 1: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The adopted phrasing says nothing about giving any new power to Congress. - - - Congressional Globe, U.S. House of Reprsentatives, February 28, 1866, p. 1088 Rep. John Bingham speaking: I have had occasion to say more than once, that the people of the United States have intrusted to the present Congress in some sense the care of the Republic, not only for the present, but for all the hereafter. Your committee, sir, would not have sent to this House for its consideration this proposition but for the conviction that its adoption by Congress and its ratification by the people of the United States is essential to the safety of all the people of every State. I repel the suggestion made here in the heat of debate, that the committee or any of its members who favor this proposition seek in any form to mar the Constitution of the country, or take away from any State any right that belongs to it, or from any citizen of any State any right that belongs to him under that Constitution. The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution to­day. It hath that, extent — no more." It is in these words: Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of said Constitution, namely: Article —. The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property. - - - Congressional Globe, U.S. House of Reprentatives, February 28, 1866, p. 1089 Rep. John Bingham speaking: We have the extraordinary argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Randall,] that however just the amendment may be we ought not to pass it in the absence of the Representatives of the eleven States lately in insurrection against the country. When it came to pass that there was an inability to get three-fourths of the union states to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, the eleven states mentioned were required to ratify it as a condition of regaining representation in Congress. That is part of how this amendment was questionably ratified. - - - Congressional Globe, U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1866, p. 1093 Mr. Bingham speaking. I beg leave to read, in confirmation of the truth of what I say, an utterance made in the hearing of the whole people of this country in 1783, when the Constitution was on trial for its deliverance. I read from No. 45 of the Federalist, a paper written by James Madison : "The powers reserved to the Federal States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." I submit that this is the text of the Constitution, except as to the new amendment prohibiting slavery, and providing for legislation to prevent it except as punishment for crime. It stands as the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the great case of McCullough vs. The State of Maryland, in 4 Wheaton. It stands as the ruling of the same tribunal in the ease of Ogden vs. Gibbons, in 9 Peters. It stands, in short, as the uniform ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, concurring with the continued action of the other depart­ments of the Government from the year 1789 till this hour, there being no law anywhere upon our statute-books to punish penally any State officer for denying in any State to any citizen of the United States protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property. It stands as the very text of the Constitution itself, which de­clares that— "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." The word "powers" controls the whole question. The Government of the United States has no legislative powers, save the express grants and the general grant to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or any officer thereof, and the implied powers necessary to carry the express powers into effect. A grant of power, according to all construction, is a very different thing from a bill of rights. In attempting to sell his amendment, John Bingham admitted the limited powers of the Federal government. - - - Congressional Globe, U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1866, p. 1095 Mr. Hotchkiss and Mr. Bingham speaking. [Mr. Hotchkiss] ... I understand the amendment as now proposed by its terms to authorize Congress to establish uniform laws throughout the United States upon the subject named, the protection of life, liberty, and property. I am unwilling that Congress shall have any such power. Congress already has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws upon the subject of bankruptcy. That is as far as I am willing that Congress shall go. The object of a Constitution is not only to confer power upon the majority, but to restrict the power of the majority and to protect the rights of the minority. It is not indulging in imagination to any great stretch to suppose that we may have a Congress here who would establish such rules in my State as I should be unwilling to be governed by. Should the power of this Government, as the gentleman from Ohio fears, pass into the hands of the rebels, I do not want rebel laws to govern and be uniform throughout this Union. Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman will pardon me. The amendment is exactly in the language of the Constitution; that is to say, it secures to the citizens of each of the States all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. It is not to transfer the laws of one State to another State at all. It is to secure to the citizen of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States. If the State laws do not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution. Mr. HOTCHKISS. Constitutions should have their provisions so plain that it will be unnecessary for courts to give construction to them; they should be so plain that the common mind can understand them. - - - Note: Five years later. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, Appendix, March 31, 1871 p. 84 Mr. Bingham speaking. These eight articles [Bingham recited the Bill of Rights] 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. The implied power, here summoned by Bingham in 1871, is the exact power he expressed in his original proposal which was rejected because of it. He removed the grant of any such power in order to obtain passage, and then he inferred it back in. - - - The U.S. Supreme Court swiftly inferred it back out. http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/36/case.html U.S. Supreme Court, Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 75-79 (1872) In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." There can be but little question that the purpose of both these provisions is the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended are the same in each. In the article of the Confederation, we have some of these specifically mentioned, and enough perhaps to give some general idea of the class of civil rights meant by the phrase. Fortunately, we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the Constitution. The first and the leading case on the subject is that of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. [Footnote 11] [76] "The inquiry," he says, "is what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may all, however, be comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole." This definition of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States is adopted in the main by this court in the recent case of Ward v. The State of Maryland, [Footnote 12] while it declines to undertake an authoritative definition beyond what was necessary to that decision. The description, when taken to include others not named, but which are of the same general character, embraces nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted. They are, in the language of Judge Washington, those rights which are fundamental. Throughout his opinion, they are spoken of as rights belonging to the individual as a citizen of a State. They are so spoken of in the constitutional provision which he was construing. And they have always been held to be the class of rights which the State governments were created to establish and secure. In the case of Paul v. Virginia, [Footnote 13] the court, in expounding this clause of the Constitution, says that "the privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each State in the several States by the provision in question are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter [77] States under the constitution and laws by virtue of their being citizens." The constitutional provision there alluded to did not create those rights, which it called privileges and immunities of citizens of the States. It threw around them in that clause no security for the citizen of the State in which they were claimed or exercised. Nor did it profess to control the power of the State governments over the rights of its own citizens. Its sole purpose was to declare to the several States that, whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more nor less, shall be the measure of the rights of citizens of other States within your jurisdiction. It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority that, up to the adoption of the recent amendments, no claim or pretence was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the States -- such, for instance, as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But, with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the States, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States? All this and more must follow if the proposition of the [78] plaintiffs in error be sound. For not only are these rights subject to the control of Congress whenever, in its discretion, any of them are supposed to be abridged by State legislation, but that body may also pass laws in advance, limiting and restricting the exercise of legislative power by the States, in their most ordinary and usual functions, as in its judgment it may think proper on all such subjects. And still further, such a construction followed by the reversal of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in these cases, would constitute this court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States, on the civil rights of their own citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time of the adoption of this amendment. The argument, we admit, is not always the most conclusive which is drawn from the consequences urged against the adoption of a particular construction of an instrument. But when, as in the case before us, these consequences are so serious, so far-reaching and pervading, so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions; when the effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; when, in fact, it radically changes the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people, the argument has a force that is irresistible in the absence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt. We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them. Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the States as such, and that they are left to the State governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges [79] and immunities of citizens of the United States which no State can abridge until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so. - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-15   1:24:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: tpaine, civilwarbuff (#6) WHAT JOHN BINGHAM SAID IN 1868 John Bingham, co-author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, Jan 14, 1868, pp 514-15: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=877 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=079/llcg079.db&recNum=878 We say to those States: "Before you send Representatives to this Hall you must accept the decree which twenty-three States of this Union have already solemnly ratified, declaring that no State of this Union shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." [...] There is not an intelligent man in America but knows that this spirit and intent of the Constitution was most flagrantly violated long anterior to the rebellion, and that the Government was power­less to remedy it by law. That amendment proposes hereafter that this great wrong shall be remedied by putting a limitation expressly into the Constitution, coupled with a grant of power to enforce it by law, so that when either Ohio or South Carolina or any other State shall in its madness or its folly refuse to the gen­tleman or his children or to me or to mine any of the rights which pertain to American citizenship or to a common humanity, there will be redress for the wrong through the power and majesty of American law. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-15   1:26:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: GrandIsland and all the rest of the LG (#4) tpaine  posted on  2016-11-15   7:07:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: GrandIsland and all the rest of his retard buddies (#4) That the passing of California bill 63 is a violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, -- is made quite evident by the further postings above. To say that those who still willingly live in California "reward your states government by paying some of the highest property tax rates in the country... and hey, you liberal douche bags got recreational weed. Now when you're all bummed that you can't own guns, you can get really fucking high. lol" --- makes GrandIsland a retard. tpaine  posted on  2016-11-15   7:19:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: nolu chan (#7) 2 excellent posts nolu chan, thanks for them.... civilwarbuff  posted on  2016-11-15   8:18:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: civilwarbuff (#10) Do you have any comments about the issue, -- or are you just here as a sycophant? tpaine  posted on  2016-11-15   8:29:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: GrandIsland (#4) paying some of the highest property tax rates nope, we passed proposition 13 years ago, which stops government from raising property taxes and was written so it can't be overturned, mr property taxes are very low, calcon  posted on  2016-11-15   12:09:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: tpaine (#11) I am impressed you could even spell syncophant......Did you even bother to read the articles? civilwarbuff  posted on  2016-11-15   14:44:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: tpaine, GrandIsland, civilwarbuff (#9) That the passing of California bill 63 is a violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, -- is made quite evident by the further postings above. Just the opposite. My posts show that the citation of John Bingham is just repurposed, irrelevant birther blather. Moreover, NO argument has been advanced about what element of Proposition 63 (not a legislative bill) violates some unidentified provision of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The due process clause or the privileges and immunities clause would appear to be the primary suspect. The 14th Amendment states, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." 2nd Amendment 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. 14th Amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right to keep and bear arms is neither a privilege nor immunity gained by virtue of United States (federal) citizenship. It was a common law right of the people before formation of the United States government, and the people explicitly restrained the Federal government from infringing upon that pre-existing right. Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Stephen H. Gifis PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES the phrase used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to describe the rights that citizens of the United States have by virtue of their citizenship. These rights derive from the establishment and existence of the federal government and thus were assumed to exist prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision makes it clear that the federal government may protect such rights from state as well as individual denials. Privileges and immunities include the right to travel. 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 35: the right to vote in federal elections. 313 U.S. 299: the right to assemble to petition federal officers and to discuss national legislation,92 U.S. 542, and any other personal right arising out of federal statutes. 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36: 112 U. S. 76. Such rights are to be distinguished from those that exist regardless of the federal government, such as the right to assembly or of jury trial. 92 U.S. 542: 92 U.S. 90; 176 U.S. 581. See generally. Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law §§9:8, 9:9 (1969). The right to keep and bear arms clearly is not derived from the establishment and existence of the federal government, nor is it a right that arose out of federal statutes. nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law This provision permits the specified deprivations with due process of law. It does not prohibit a law providing for a deprivation, or establishing what process is due within the State effecting such deprivation. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Due process of law. Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards of the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one question belongs. A course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution—that is, by the law of creation—to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within state, or his voluntary appearance. Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565. Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law. An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 I11.2d 405, 259 N.E. 2nd 282, 290. Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing. Pettit v. Penn, La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69. The concept of "due process of law" as it is embodied in Fifth Amendment demands that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that the means selected shall have a reasonable and substantial relation to the object being sought. U. S. v. Smith, D.C.Iowa 249 F.Supp. 515, 516. Fundamental requisite of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard, to be aware matter is pending, to make an informed choice whether to acquiesce or contest, and to assert before the apropriate decision-making body the reasons for such choice. Trinity Episcopal Corp. v. Romney, D.C.N.Y F.Supp. 1044, 1084. Aside from all else, "due process" means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883. Embodied in the due process concept are the basic rights of a defendant in criminal proceedings and the requisites for a fair trial. These rights and require­ments have been expanded by Supreme Court decisions and include, timely notice of a hearing or trial which informs the accused of the charges against him or her; the opportunity to confront accusers and to present evidence on one's own behalf before an impartial jury or judge; the presumption of innocence under which guilt must be proven by legally obtained evidence and the verdict must be supported by the evidence presented; the right of an accused to be warned of constitutional rights at the earliest stage of the criminal process; protection against self-incrimination; assistance of coun­sel at every critical stage of the criminal process; and the guarantee that an individual will not be tried more than once for the same offense (double jeopardy). See also Procedural due process; Substantive due pro­cess. Due process rights. All rights which are of such funda­mental importance as to require compliance with due process standards of fairness and justice. Procedural and substantive rights of citizens against government actions that threaten the denial of life, liberty, or prop­erty. See Due process of law. And as long as the full section one of the 14th Amendment has been quoted, including the citizenship clause, it should be noted that John Bingham was not the author of the citizenship clause. That was introduced by Senator Jacob Howard in the Senate as an amendment. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-15   18:12:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: civilwarbuff (#13) Do you have any comments about the issue, -- or are you just here as a sycophant to our wannabe law clerk? I am impressed you could even spell syncophant......Did you even bother to read the articles? I posted the article, buffie, and obviously you can't make a rational comment on the issue. I think it's a good constitutional point to cite the 14th, as above, in our effort to strike down this odious 'law'. Some here want to let this infringement stand. -- Do you? tpaine  posted on  2016-11-15   20:21:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: civilwarbuff (#10) 2 excellent posts nolu chan, thanks for them.... I agree….these are 2 excellent posts. Thanks, chan, for your continuing intellectual contributions to LF. It is refreshing to see you engaging in a continuous critical study, deep thought and heavy reflection about the truthful reality of society and the political sphere. You rarely propose solutions, you simply post factual information on the normative problems of society and politics, and, through such discourse here on LF….allows all to gain authoritative knowledge. You are able to be trusted as being accurate or true with your reliable and clear information….and sometimes, advice. Keep up the great work … Gatlin  posted on  2016-11-15   21:08:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: nolu chan (#16) Sorry, I forgot to ping you ... Gatlin  posted on  2016-11-15   21:10:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: Gatlin, civilwarbuff (#16) Thanks. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-15   22:25:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: civilwarbuff, yall (#13) Some here want to let this infringement stand, and they make it quite evident, - they don't really give a shit about infringements of our Constitution by States, because they are statist clowns. Second request -- Do you agree with them? ---- Why? tpaine  posted on  2016-11-15   23:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: civilwarbuff (#13) I am impressed you could even spell syncophant......Did you even bother to read the articles? Some here specialize in imaginary law. For example, they maintain that amendments to the Constitution can be struck down as unconstitutional, and that U.S. Supreme Court opinions interpreting the Constitution only apply to the parties to the lawsuit and everyone else may ignore them. Welcome to the Outer Limits and the Twilight Zone. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-16   20:34:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: civilwarbuff, yall (#13) I maintain that amendments to the Constitution can be struck down as unconstitutional, and that U.S. Supreme Court opinions interpreting the Constitution are opinions that are changeable by further court opinions, thus are not law. --- They apply to the parties to the original lawsuit, and to other suits exactly like the original. Everyone else may dispute such opinions, at their own peril, --- as anti- constitutional judges and lawyers abound. tpaine  posted on  2016-11-17   20:44:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: tpaine, nolu chan, Gatlin, yall (#21) An amendment cannot be struck down as being unconstitutional by the simple fact that the amendment changes the constitution to make what that amendment proposes legal. If striking down an amendment were within the power of SCOTUS they most likely would have struck down the 18th amendment as unconstitutional for prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol, which was a legal beverage. civilwarbuff  posted on  2016-11-23   12:17:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: civilwarbuff, tpaine, Gatlin (#22) An amendment cannot be struck down as being unconstitutional by the simple fact that the amendment changes the constitution to make what that amendment proposes legal. If striking down an amendment were within the power of SCOTUS they most likely would have struck down the 18th amendment as unconstitutional for prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol, which was a legal beverage. I wish you good luck penetrating his thick skull. As for Supreme Court opinions/decisions, according to his nonsense, only Jane Roe won the right to an abortion and only Obergefell won the right to marry his same-sex partner. The Constitution and its amendments resulted from an act of the people, acting in their sovereign capacity. They can only be repealed or amended by another act of the people acting in their sovereign capacity. The people only empowered to court to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. tpaine operates in an imaginary world with his own imaginary law, dissociated from reality. nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-23   13:38:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: civilwarbuff (#22) An amendment cannot be struck down as being unconstitutional by the simple fact that the amendment changes the constitution to make what that amendment proposes legal. True, the scotus cannot 'strike down' an amendment, they can only issue an opinion to that effect, and wait for the people to repeal or amend. ---- In the interim, most rational people would ignore the unconstitutional amendment. --- Which they did with the 18th, even though scotus would not opine. If striking down an amendment were within the power of SCOTUS they most likely would have struck down the 18th amendment as unconstitutional for prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol, which was a legal beverage. Actually, scotus refused to issue an opinion, (after lengthy hearings) probably because of that issue. tpaine  posted on  2016-11-23   16:15:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: tpaine, civilwarbuff (#24) If striking down an amendment were within the power of SCOTUS they most likely would have struck down the 18th amendment as unconstitutional for prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol, which was a legal beverage. Actually, scotus refused to issue an opinion, (after lengthy hearings) probably because of that issue. Once again, this is complete, total, utter bullshit. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/350/case.html U.S. Supreme Court National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920) National Prohibition Cases No. 29, 30, Original, and No. 696, 762, 788, 794, 837 Argued March 8, 9, 10, 29, 30, 1920 Decided June 7, 1920 253 U.S. 350 ORIGINAL, AND APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, AND THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. P. 253 U. S. 386. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present -- assuming the presence of a quorum -- and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent. Id. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276. The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Id. Hawke v. Smith, ante, 253 U. S. 221. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution. Id. That Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument. Id. [snip] nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-23   18:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: All you sycophants, ---- and clown observers (#24) civilwarbuff, ---- An amendment cannot be struck down as being unconstitutional by the simple fact that the amendment changes the constitution to make what that amendment proposes legal. True, the scotus cannot 'strike down' an amendment, they can only issue an opinion to that effect, and wait for the people to repeal or amend. ---- In the interim, most rational people would ignore the unconstitutional amendment. --- Which they did with the 18th, even though scotus opined that --- " The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution. " If striking down an amendment were within the power of SCOTUS they most likely would have struck down the 18th amendment as unconstitutional for prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol, which was a legal beverage.I Actually, scotus refused to issue an opinion about the 14th amendment aspects of the issue, (our rights to enjoy life, liberty, and property, while drinking booze), -- and insisted they had a power to prohibit, -- which is NOT found in our constitution. tpaine  posted on  2016-11-24   9:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: All (#26) To clarify the issue:--- The scotus has opined, numerous times, that State and Fed governments have a constitutional power to prohibit our personal ability to enjoy life, liberty, and property;--- even though NO SUCH power is found in the document, - and amendments to that effect would infringe on ALL our individual rights, in effect nullifying constitutional principles. One wonders WHY any citizen would support a 'power to prohibit'. tpaine  posted on  2016-11-24   10:04:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com