Jump to content

SCOTUS ignoring its own precedent in McDonald


mstrat

Recommended Posts

Judges are required to abide by rulings made by higher courts when those rulings are relevant to a case at hand.

 

e.g. post-Heller, a lower court judge cannot issue a ruling predicated upon the idea that the Second Amendment protects the collective right of a militia.

 

Why then, could 4 of the judges in the SCOTUS b**** and moan that they disagree with Heller in their dissent of McDonald? Their own court, the highest court, ruled that keeping and bearing firearms are an individual right. Should they not have to predicate future rulings on their past ones?

 

Seems like yet more proof that the Supreme Court is "a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the court is definitely a political machine. Right now it just so happens to be slanted on our favor. I don't think it should be political but don't see how it can't.

 

Yes.

 

They frequently (especially the left-wing justices) just choose what they feel like, as opposed to the actual law. Judgments in very charged issues appear to often be based more on political preference than an honest interpretation.

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

Sotomayor (the worst), Kagen, Ginsburg, and Breyer just rule however pleases their left-wing ideas of a "living" (e.g. changed to whatever they want it to be) document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the court is definitely a political machine. Right now it just so happens to be slanted on our favor. I don't think it should be political but don't see how it can't.

 

Yes.

 

They frequently (especially the left-wing justices) just choose what they feel like, as opposed to the actual law. Judgments in very charged issues appear to often be based more on political preference than an honest interpretation.

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

Sotomayor (the worst), Kagen, Ginsburg, and Breyer just rule however pleases their left-wing ideas of a "living" (e.g. changed to whatever they want it to be) document.

 

I LOVED Clarence Thomas's concurrence statement filed with the McDonald case. The HUMOR is amazing. He just nails every false argument the left wing justices make. Worth a read. And to think they almost didn't confirm him. The man is brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the court is definitely a political machine. Right now it just so happens to be slanted on our favor. I don't think it should be political but don't see how it can't.

 

Yes.

 

They frequently (especially the left-wing justices) just choose what they feel like, as opposed to the actual law. Judgments in very charged issues appear to often be based more on political preference than an honest interpretation.

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

Sotomayor (the worst), Kagen, Ginsburg, and Breyer just rule however pleases their left-wing ideas of a "living" (e.g. changed to whatever they want it to be) document.

 

I LOVED Clarence Thomas's concurrence statement filed with the McDonald case. The HUMOR is amazing. He just nails every false argument the left wing justices make. Worth a read. And to think they almost didn't confirm him. The man is brilliant.

Any chance you could post a link to Thomas' comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance you could post a link to Thomas' comments?

 

Here is a link directly to a hyperlinked HTML version of Justice Thomas's concurrence.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZC1.html

 

If you want to drive yourself crazy, the top of the first page has links to the left wing version of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, as an attorney, I get upset when people complain about the Court acting like a "superlegislature" when rulings don't go their way, but praise it as unbiased when rulings do comport with their politics.

 

And the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent, even it's own precedent. It just doesn't like to reverse what, over time, becomes settled law. Rehnquist said as much about Roe v. Wade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant the "superlegislature" comment as a general proposition - lefties cry foul when decisions such as Citizens United came down, which was, IMHO, not exactly the model of judicial restraint.

 

What I mean is, if we want to be realistic, we will accept the fact that politics does play an important role in how judges decide cases, no matter how regrettable that may be. And given the make up of the current court, if we want to get precedent on the books which will bind the myriad federal courts which is favorable to our cause, we should be pressing hard in the courts to do what, e.g., Illinois, can not or will not do in its legislature. But let's call it what it is: creating law (or legislating, if you will) through the courts which is consistent with the Constitution and 2nd Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judicial activism? You mean like this? Does anyone believe that Kagan will recuse herself from hearing the Obamacare mandate Constitutionality challenge? Even after documents reveal that she was the one that helped craft the legal defense of the law she will ultimately rule on.;)

 

Now you know why the left has been targeting Thomas for the last year, because they knew that eventually it was going to be revealed that Kagen has a HUGE conflict of interest. What irritates me is that the lefties basicly lied about her involvement in this while she was going through her confirmation hearings.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/18/oh-my-documents-reveal-that-kagan-may-have-helped-craft-legal-defense-of-obamacare/

Oh my: Documents reveal that Kagan may have helped craft legal defense of ObamaCare

posted at 9:17 pm on May 18, 2011 by Allahpundit

printer-friendly

 

She won't recuse herself, needless to say. Defending their signature domestic "achievement" when it's under mortal threat from a constitutional challenge is much, much more important to the left than observing ethical rules. Which is why, of course, they've been hassling Clarence Thomas about a supposed conflict of interest in his own right vis-a-vis ObamaCare. They know Kagan is compromised, so they're setting up a "tu quoque" rejoinder for when, not if, the GOP takes up this point in earnest.

 

I wonder if they know how compromised she is.

 

On
March 21, 2010
, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health care litigation meeting that was evidently organized by the Obama White House: "This is the first I've heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance."

 

In another email exchange that took place on January 8, 2010, Katyal's Department of Justice colleague Brian Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group to discuss challenges to Obamacare. "Could you figure out the right person or people for that?" Hauck asked. "Absolutely right on. Let's crush them," Katyal responded. "I'll speak with Elena and designate someone."

 

However, following the May 10, 2010, announcement that President Obama would nominate Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court,
Katyal position changed significantly
as he began to suggest that Kagan had been "walled off" from Obamacare discussions…

 

"Any reasonable person would read these documents and come to the same conclusion: Elena Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration's defense of Obamacare. And as long as the Justice Department continues to withhold key documents, the American people won't know for sure whether her involvement would warrant her recusal from any Obamacare litigation that comes before the High Court," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

 

March 21, 2010 was the day ObamaCare passed the House and, for all intents and purposes, became law. It's hard to believe Kagan, as solicitor general, wouldn't have showed up for a legal strategy session held that day, let alone at any point over the previous six months as the bill was working its way through Congress. But here's the excuse they're going to offer the public:

 

On May 17, 2010, for example, Tracy Schmaler, a Department of Justice spokesperson wrote to Katyal, "Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG office was consulted … ?"

 

"No, she has never been involved in any of it. I've run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit," was Katyal's response. He then forwarded the correspondence to Kagan, saying "This is what I told Tracy about Health Care."

 

Kagan's response:
"This needs to be coordinated. Tracy you should not say anything about this before talking to me."

 

Other email chains between Kagan, White House lawyers and Vice President Joe Biden's then-Chief of Staff Ronald Klain show a coordinated effort on how to respond to questions about the health-care law that may have arisen in the confirmation hearings.

 

Just so we're straight on the timeline here: On March 21, the day ObamaCare was passed, Katyal is inviting Kagan to strategy sessions about the new law. On April 9, John Paul Stevens resigns and speculation erupts about Kagan succeeding him. On May 17, Katyal is suddenly telling people that Kagan's never been involved in anything — even though she is, in fact, the solicitor general of the United States and even though he explicitly invited her to a meeting about the law less than two months earlier — and Kagan is warning people via e-mail to make sure everyone has their story straight on what she knew by "coordinating." Is that about right? I want to make sure we're all square on this nonsense for when the mandate challenge finally reaches the Court and we're told by her office that everything is magically copacetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Kagan should recuse herself from consideration of ObamaCare. But that doesn't make her a "judicial activist." "Judicial Activism" is writing opinions that rule on constitutional grounds when unnecessary, or announce broad principles in holdings which go far beyond the facts of the case before the Court. Neither the left nor the right leaning judges are innocent of "judicial activist" tendencies, although the lefties do it more often.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />
<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

 

Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

I invite you to read the briefs for the McDonald case (http://www.chicagoguncase.com). You will find an abundance if information there and all of the history and legal precedents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

 

I think your logic is lacking in standing, IMO. But then again, I think the whole 'group rights' camp (IE: state rights, business rights, lobbiest rights, whatever rights) are full of bunk. An individual has rights; an organization (or group of individuals working in concert towards a common goal, like a government, business, etc...) has obligations to their members, but no rights.

 

Of course, I don't think that spending money = free speech, either, so there ya go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

 

It is apparent that you haven't done the required reading. Have you read David E. Young's excellent books on the history of the 2nd Amendment? I highly recommend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

 

I think your logic is lacking in standing, IMO. But then again, I think the whole 'group rights' camp (IE: state rights, business rights, lobbiest rights, whatever rights) are full of bunk. An individual has rights; an organization (or group of individuals working in concert towards a common goal, like a government, business, etc...) has obligations to their members, but no rights.

 

Of course, I don't think that spending money = free speech, either, so there ya go.

 

What do you think the Civil War was fought over? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't slavery.

 

The states were given the right to run their own government with minimal intrusion by the Feds. That means anything that the Federal Government was prohibited from doing was left up to the states to decide. That's why the states have their own constitutions. The USA is made up of 50 little sovereign countries, otherwise known as states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

 

It is apparent that you haven't done the required reading. Have you read David E. Young's excellent books on the history of the 2nd Amendment? I highly recommend them.

 

I've read the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

 

I think your logic is lacking in standing, IMO. But then again, I think the whole 'group rights' camp (IE: state rights, business rights, lobbiest rights, whatever rights) are full of bunk. An individual has rights; an organization (or group of individuals working in concert towards a common goal, like a government, business, etc...) has obligations to their members, but no rights.

 

Of course, I don't think that spending money = free speech, either, so there ya go.

 

What do you think the Civil War was fought over? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't slavery.

 

The states were given the right to run their own government with minimal intrusion by the Feds. That means anything that the Federal Government was prohibited from doing was left up to the states to decide. That's why the states have their own constitutions. The USA is made up of 50 little sovereign countries, otherwise known as states.

 

At the risk of perpetrating an off-topic discussion, I'll say this: read the secession speeches given by the state officials for each state as they seceded. In those, it is definitely about slavery.

 

Where was the South's love of "states' rights" when they passed the Fugitive Slave Act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

 

It is apparent that you haven't done the required reading. Have you read David E. Young's excellent books on the history of the 2nd Amendment? I highly recommend them.

 

I've read the Constitution.

 

That is, of course, only the beginning of the story. You have to read the stuff published publicly and privately during the ratification, the legal precedents, and the early legal interpretations since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I like Clarence Thomas the best. He sees the constitution the way it was written and rules on it.

 

 

 

If that were true, then he would have known that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As much as we like McDonald, the decision was totally incorrect.

 

Can you show me where it says that the second amendment only applies to one level of governement? The first amendment does, but the second amendment does not, particularly once the 14th amendment is included.

 

The amendments were never meant to apply to the states. They are restrictions on the federal government. The Framers intended for the states to do their own thing, which is how it should be. We were never supposed to have a federal government that runs everything. If you read up on the 14th Amendment you'll see that it was ratified by force, and never would have been ratified if not for the strong arm tactics involved. That aside, bad case law since then doesn't make it right, but precedents are still built on bad case law. In law school they study Constitutional case law, not the actual constitution or its history.

 

BTW, the 1st Amendment has been incorporated.

 

And so has the 2nd....via McDonald.

 

Gee, I didn't know that.

 

Again, as much as we wanted to see Dickie take it up the rear, it's still bad case law based on bad precedent. Just because the Nazgul say it's so, doesn't make it right. They base their decisions on the bad decisions of past SCsOTUS.

 

The 10th covers it pretty well. "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."

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the McDonald was ruled in our favor, but incorporation does nothing but give the idiots in Washington more power over their subjects.

 

I think your logic is lacking in standing, IMO. But then again, I think the whole 'group rights' camp (IE: state rights, business rights, lobbiest rights, whatever rights) are full of bunk. An individual has rights; an organization (or group of individuals working in concert towards a common goal, like a government, business, etc...) has obligations to their members, but no rights.

 

Of course, I don't think that spending money = free speech, either, so there ya go.

 

What do you think the Civil War was fought over? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't slavery.

 

The states were given the right to run their own government with minimal intrusion by the Feds. That means anything that the Federal Government was prohibited from doing was left up to the states to decide. That's why the states have their own constitutions. The USA is made up of 50 little sovereign countries, otherwise known as states.

 

Not...really? No, the states are not sovereign. I could be wrong, but I don't recall Illinois declaring war on Germany in either WW1 or WW2. They do have certain purviews that, being a more local form of government, made more sense for the states to have the duty to oversee rather than the Federal government, particularly given the limitations of 18th and 19th century technologies. Today, not so much.

 

And the Civil War was indeed over the concept of so-called 'states rights'... that some state governments felt that they had responsibility (aka obligation) to protect some individuals right to keep some men, women, and children in bondage against their will. You know, slavery.

 

So the Civil War was (*gasp*) over... slavery. To try and say otherwise is, again, questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...