Posted on 01/15/2006 8:59:46 AM PST by Dog Gone
No, this is just plain wrong. Prior to the adoption of the XIV Amendment the entire Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the adoption of the XIV Amendment the SCOTUS gradually started the Nationalization of the Bill of Rights and gradually applied more and more of its provisions against the states. Compare Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) (Due process and the BoR does not require states to provide counsel or to determine whether the defendant wants counsel. State courts are not bound by the procedures that federal courts are bound to follow.) with Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (The "right to counsel" is fully applicable against the states). Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) (the states don't have to follow the exclusionary rule) with Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). However the SCOTUS NEVER incorporated some provisions of the Bill of Rights, among them the Sixth Amendment's implicit guarantee that convictions be obtained only from unanimous twelve-member juries (Burch v. Louisiana) and the Second Amendment.
Why? What does the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution have to do with the City of Chicago's gun laws? Tell me specifically how it applies.
Then tell me why Chicago's gun laws, and New York's, and LA's have NEVER even been challenged as a violation of the second amendment. NEVER.
The Ninth Amendment was meant as a constriant on federal power - not as a justification for expanding such. If the Ninth and the Tenth are treated as a tandem, as they should be, abortion should have remained a matter for the states. Only by taking an activist view of the Ninth, as happened with Griswold, can such a view be used to supercede both state laws and the Tenth.
Wow! So we have the right to do any thing we please unless the government says we can't.
Some rights.
Think of it as "reasonably restricted".
States (actually the citizens of the states) decide which of these natural rights they will protect and to what extent.
Simply not true. Both Article VI & the 14th specifically address this issue, making clear that States are bound to support the US Constitution and the individuals rights protected therein.
In Chicago, you have a right to defend yourself, but not with a gun.
-- how is it possible that some states allow concealed carry and some don't?
How is it possible that some cities actually ban the ownership of handguns?
By igoring the clear words of the Constitution, combined with the failure of our President, Congress, and Courts to insist that they cease such prohibitions. --- The 'majority will' is operating to infringe on our RKBA's, urged on by 'democratic' folks like you.
What happened to Equal Protection and Due Process?
(Answer: The second amendment doesn't apply to the states, only the federal government. Gasp!)
Yes robby [gasp], we here at FR are no longer shocked at your refusal to support the Constitutions 2nd Amendment as the Law of the Land.
Make you proud?
This is just wrong!
BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. 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.
As you can see it was universally understood prior in the early days of the Republic that the BoR applied only to the fedgov.
As to the "incorporation". Well, even during the heyday of the Warren court it never went as far as to claim that the entire BoR was incorporated and applies to the states. Surely you don't want to be in the same league with "Wild Bill" Douglas ;-).
This is just wrong!
BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. 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.
As you can see it was universally understood in the early days of the Republic that the BoR applied only to the fedgov.
As to the "incorporation". Well, even during the heyday of the Warren court it never went as far as to claim that the entire BoR was incorporated and applies to the states. Surely you don't want to be in the same league with "Wild Bill" Douglas ;-).
You're of course right. Most people here do not realise that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. Unless of course the SCOTUS does something about it.
I prefer to follow an interpretation which is consistent with orignial intent - namely that the BOR applies to the states. Whatever interpretation Fairman came up with, it doesn't square with the what the authors and approvers of the 14th Amendment said in the course of their debates. The article I referenced is only summary of the comments and the issues raised. Whole books have been written about the Constitution and I can hardly offer the whole story in a posting here at Freerepublic.
Unchallenged? Or challenged and ruled constitutional, though you disagree with the court's conclusion?
You're pretty flippant with simply calling things "unconstitutional" when you can't explain them any other way. My Occam's Razor explanation that the second amendment simply doesn't apply to the states aparently triggers your cognitive dissonance.
Same-same and I agree.
Correct. But, in order for you to exercise that right, the protection of that right better be listed somewhere.
There is a peculiar irony to the Left's claim that a woman (a mother, by the clear implication of their objective) possesses a so-called constitutional "right to privacy" which trumps the clearly constitutional protection of life and liberty of the child in her womb.
True, in fact only some parts of the BoR have been extended to the states.
F.ex.
Freedom of speech - Giltow v. New York (1925)
Right to counsel in capital cases - Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Establisment of religon - Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
The exclusionary rule - Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Right to counsel in all cases - Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Trial by jury - Duncan v. Lousiana (1968)
Some parts of the BoR (like the 2nd Amendment) were never extended to the states and some parts of the BoR (like the Sixth Amendment's implicit guarantee that convictions be obtained only from unanimous twelve-member juries - the Supreme Court held that juries had to be composed of twelve persons and that verdicts had to be unanimous,because it was customary in England) were explicitly limited to the federal government (Burch v. Louisiana in 1979).
The right to privacy became, in effect, a federally protected constitutional right by virtue of the Ninth Amendment and emanations proceeding from several others. The Court does not address any Tenth Amendment concerns in Griswold, and I don't know that any were ever raised.
Actually, you do. However, manufacturing it, importing it, possessing it, appearing in public while under its influence, or engaging in commerce in it remain constitutionally prohibited.
Actually, you do. However, manufacturing it, importing it, possessing it, appearing in public while under its influence, or engaging in commerce in it remain constitutionally prohibited.
That is not the argument. The writer of this article claimed the right to privacy was a myth because it was not listed in the US Constitution. He is wrong.
This is not a discussion about the exercise of rights, which is always difficult at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.