Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
No it won’t.
The NRA haters will never join because they’re lazy and the members of the NRA know the political processes.
A little something called the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that. Look at the date on that case.
Nearly every major right protected by the Bill of Rights has been held to be incorporated by the 14th. Just about the only ones that haven't have just not come up for consideration yet.
Sotomayor's opinion on the 2nd amendment completely ignores 150 years of 14th amendment jurisprudence, doesn't even raise the issue. That is intellectually dishonest, and just another reason why she shouldn't sit on ANY court.
Right and where is the GOA crowd when you need them on this issue? I'll tell you where; hiding in their homes like frightened little rabbits and sending their donations to a group that can do absolutely nothing about opposing gun-grabbing extremists such Sotomayor
Do you believe the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Gov.? And if you believe that is true then you must believe the entire Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Gov. Is that your belief?
But I am sure she understands it to say that no one can defy the federal gov
Sotomayor-”I have friends who hunt.”
is the equivalent to Sen. Byrd saying...
I have black friends.
They won't do it overtly because they know we'll rise up.
Instead they will use government controlled health care to do it. Once the Feds get control of our health care they'll declare that guns in the home are dangerous and causing high health costs.
If they know you have guns they'll either refuse to cover you outright or tax the sh!t out of you to pay for your health care. You'll turn over your guns voluntarily because you'll need health care for yourself or your family.
Never said anything about NRA haters. Just saying that the wait and see approach to a person who says the 2a does not apply to the states will not go down well in many circles.
I am a member, and have been since the 70's, and I already fired off an e mail stating the above.
People like that witch need to be gotton down on now!, not after a while, to see which way the grass leans.
Enough, I say.
Sotomayor is a gun grabbing leftist!
My larger point was that the nomination presents a teachable moment, as to exactly HOW the Circuit Courts are lying their asses off about precedent, and getting away with it.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886): ".. the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ..."
Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2nd Cir 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006): "Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states."
If a judge can't even READ the precedent, what business do they have behind the bench? And here, the Court is reading the case for the direct OPPOSITE of what it says.
And that fact is going to be lost in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about "incorporation" that will fly right over the public's head.
Since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been common practice for the federal courts to impose against the states the same restrictions that are imposed against the federal government by the Bill of Rights Amendments. In other words, the same citizens' rights that are protected by the Bill of Rights amendments from encroachment on the part of the federal government have been ruled to be protected from encroachment by the state governments as well. This is commonly called the doctrine of "incorporation": The Fourteenth Amendment, through its "due process" clause, keeps the states at bay and precludes them from infringing on the civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Amendments.
Unless it’s on Obama’s discretion.
The idea that the Bill of Rights was *NOT* designed to bind the states has a long tradition, and might even be considered part of the 'originalist' interpretation of the Constiution. For instance the first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law ..." The implication was that while the founders did not want to the Congress to have the power to assert that a particular church was the church of the US, the states were still free to do so. In other words the issue is that the Bill of Rights were insisted on by the States to limit the powers of FedGov, not to limit their own (or other states) rights. Since the adoption of the 14th ammendment the courts have ruled that many of the original ammendments are "incorporated" , ie the 14th forces the states to follow the earlier ammendments themselves. This, itself, was considered judicial activism as wild as Roe V. Wade when it was first put forward, 100 years ago. Today there isn't much disagreement about it except for nit-picking Constitutionalists and paleo-conservatives. Thomas Woods Jr. covers the issue in some depth in his great book "Who Killed the Constitution".
“Constitutional Law” means different things to people of the two ideologies.
To a conservative, it means discovering what the Constitution meant at the time it was ratified.
To a liberal, it means “case law”, ie, what other judges have said it means, “evolving” over time.
ALL TEN first amendments should apply to the states as FUNDAMENTAL rights, or not, en masse.
That would be Puerto Rican people having access to firearms, and as Spanish citizens prior to 1898, they probably didn’t have free access. Puerto Ricans aren’t Spanish citizens because Spain ceded the island to the US in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War.
Mexicans had nothing to do with it.
My money's on king of spinelessness, Lindsey Graham
Well, seeing that he's already said she'll most likely pass the committee...
At this point in time it does not apply to the states. Hopefully in the very near future it will. The SC possessed just enough idiocy to not incorporate the entire BOR at once, but that doesn’t change the fact that they did not do so. The law at this time is on her side. If she is confirmed hopefully she will find herself on the short side when this comes before them.
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.