Posted on 01/15/2006 8:59:46 AM PST by Dog Gone
You were busted.
There are liars and then there are damned liars. You would be classified as the latter. EverythingI post I include a link to. I assume that those links are read or I would not post them. As the saying goes I made an ass of u 'n me.
Congratulations. You've been exposed as both.
To: dirtboy; don asmussen; Dead Corpse; Tarkin
Amendment 2
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.
Nunn v State of Georgia, 1846
Judge Lumpkin in a nice rebuke of Marshall writes in part:
"The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States, in their act of ratification, recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature." Judge Lumpkin
Amen.
515 posted on 01/18/2006 5:09:36 PM EST by jwalsh07
Left it out again.
We do learn, slowly. The 14th Amendment shows that.
The next step will be to put abortion back in the sphere of the states' powers. After that happens we'll learn the next step. Then the one after that.
I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States. The court held otherwise, however, in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (18 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says: "The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision: 'Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals, whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that that Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence.
I told you you wouldn't like it. Statists never like justices who embrace natural rights and textualism.
Well Robert, it seems Justice Spencer was a seer because he incorporated it in New Yorks jurisprudence 149 years before that. Quite a guy.
He ruled that double jeopardy never even occurred. So his "opinion" was moot.
Trying to pass off a double jeopardy reference as a jury trial precedent again.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Welp, when they have zero decisions in their favor they're left to sift dicta for their emanations of penumbras.
LOL, a novel approach to jurisprudence.
Dicta.
Dicta or holding, it doesn't matter. Either way it puts the lie to your false assertion. Some people are born statists and losers. Such is life.
pedantic dictum
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.