Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
He was under age 18, or over age 45? Or did he perhaps undergo an early experimental sex-change operation?
Let's try this again:
Presumably, the expert witnesses will have different takes on various points, in which case it falls to the court to decide who is more credible.Admittedly, the repetition may not do you any good -- I don't think that Babelfish has a filter for converting from English to the language spoken on your home planet.
OK.
Article IV, Section 2 was written and ratified before the BOR was even added to the constitution. How could Article IV, Section 2 encompass the rights recognized in the BOR when the BOR didn't even exist?
I said nothing about rights. I was talking about privileges and immunities. Did you miss that? Did you not understand that?
Article IV, Section 2 deals with privileges and immunities, not rights. I said when it comes to Article IV privileges and immunities, a state cannot treat a citizen of another state differently than their own.
So what was in the Constitution in 1787 to stop a state from denying fundamental rights to a citizen of another state, if not Article IV?
The relevance is that we're here, now, today - not 70 years ago.
The relevance is that the usability of some things is not readily apparant at a given time - short barrels are nothing new and haven't been for 70 years, yet only recently was the "it's for criminals" mindset overcome and such items brought into common militia use.
The relevance is that you're stuck arguing standards from 60, 70, 150, 200 or more years ago, while the rest of us have moved into the 21st Century, and have the latest Parker verdict to support our RKBA.
Rights are Rights. It's not a "Right" if you have to ask permission. Why this is so hard to understand for some folks can only be explained by ignorance, or arrogance. Either ignorance that you have such a Right, or the arrogance to tell another person that they have no Rights.
It wasn't Robert that I was educating, that would be a lost cause.
Because fundamental rights - many of which were recognized in the BOR - existed long before the BOR.
By "denying fundamental rights" of course you mean, "denying the protection of fundamental rights". In 1787, there was nothing to stop a state from denying the protection of fundamental rights to their OWN citizens (much less citizens of another state) except the state constitution.
Those are rights. Why in the world would you think Article IV, Section 2 -- which only mentions privileges and immunities of Citizens of the states -- would encompass ANY rights?
If you exclude fundamental rights from "privileges and immunities", then what required states to protect the fundamental rights of citizens of other states that it recognized for its own citizens?
1. The 1825 Corfield decision for one:
"The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign."
2. Douglass, 1821:
"...the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights, and all the methods of protecting those rights, which belong to a person in a state of civil society,"
In 1787, did the states protect the fundamental rights of citizens of other states that it recognized for its own citizens? If they did, I assume it was under their state constitution.
Douglass said, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a person in a state of civil society". (He didn't say, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a Citizen of a state.) I listed a whole bunch of those belonging to a person in a state of civil society in an earlier post.
But in your view of privileges and immunities, they were not required to do so. Does it not seem absurd that the Constitution would require a state to entitle the citizens of other states to its privileges and immunities, but not its fundamental rights?
Isn't that an application of federalism? Each state unique in the rights it protects and the laws it enforces?
Or does that make you uncomfortable?
Would you like just one set of rights and one set of rules for all 50 states? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's do that, then we'll have five justices interpret those rights for all of us, AND they'll also rule on the constitutionality of the laws that we all must obey!
And if we don't like it we can always move to another .... no, can't do that.
Bull. Justice Washington, Corfield:
Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety;
-snip-
These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities,"
Douglass said, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a person in a state of civil society". (He didn't say, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a Citizen of a state.)
So? He was defining P&I, not saying how they applied to Article IV or the States.
I listed a whole bunch of those belonging to a person in a state of civil society in an earlier post.
Like the right to travel, and the right to commerce. So you do agree that P&I does include at least some fundamental rights. What evidence do you have that the Founders thought the terms "privileges" and "immunities" did not comprehend fundamental rights?
Are you playing games here? There was no mention of rights in your post #1213 -- that's the one you asked me to comment on.
Now you bring up something else. Screw you. I'm outta here. I'm tired of putting up with your bull$hit and your gotcha games.
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.