Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sotomayor to Senators: 2nd Amendment does not apply to states
DC Examiner ^ | 6/11/09 | Bill Dupray

Posted on 06/11/2009 1:53:18 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun

When the lefties are replacing a lefty on the Supreme Court with another lefty, the balance is preserved and the downside to the country is somewhat minimized. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. If Obama were filling Scalia's seat for example, this would be a Battle Royale. I figured that the Republicans can't stop this nominee anyway, unless something big and nasty was unearthed. Methinks this is it.

Though she says she supports Heller's holding that the 2nd Amendment prevents the Federal Government from banning guns, still undecided is the issue of whether that holding also applies to state bans. The Supreme Court has, over the years, decided that each Amendment in the Bill of Rights does indeed also apply to the states. It is crucial that Heller be read the same way. In a rare moment of candor from a SCOTUS nominee, Sotomayor seems to have tipped her hand: No dice.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndadmendment; 2ndamendment; banglist; rbka; scotus; sotomayor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
I done told ya.
1 posted on 06/11/2009 1:53:18 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Right: Sotanomore


2 posted on 06/11/2009 1:55:43 PM PDT by Ahithophel (Padron@Anniversario)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
As I posted on another thread... that's not all bad. Using her theory, that means the states can just pass local legislation that says we don't pay income taxes, and wah-lah... the 16th Amendment is dead.

Plus, I live in TX so I have no fears about gun restraints... at least yet.

3 posted on 06/11/2009 1:58:17 PM PDT by ataDude (Its like 1933, mixed with the Carter 70s, plus the books 1984 and Animal Farm, all at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

It’s noteworthy that our legal class seems not to believe in the law.


4 posted on 06/11/2009 1:58:27 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

My two Texas Senators will gladly vote for her so as to avoid the racism charge of not voting for her.


5 posted on 06/11/2009 1:59:51 PM PDT by lormand (Texas - What America used to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ataDude

”Using her theory, that means the states can just pass local legislation that says we don't pay income taxes, and wah-lah... the 16th Amendment is dead.”

Let me answer that for her:
No dice

Logic isn’t part of a leftist mentality.

6 posted on 06/11/2009 2:03:42 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
It’s noteworthy that our legal class seems not to believe in the law.

Why not? Our Treasury Secretary doesn't believe in paying taxes either.

7 posted on 06/11/2009 2:08:12 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or, are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

She also said that judges should make policy.


8 posted on 06/11/2009 2:10:20 PM PDT by TheThinker (America doesn't have a president. It has a usurper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Molon labe, Judge Latina.


9 posted on 06/11/2009 2:11:52 PM PDT by kromike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker

That was proved with the MOPAR deal.


10 posted on 06/11/2009 2:12:22 PM PDT by ex91B10 (The only response now is mass resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Constitutional rights should be protected in the Courts and in the legislative and executive branches of government. The Federal government should first and foremost be a protector.

This is why "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" should be cornerstones for our inalienable and God-given freedoms. And Life includes protection of life at the beginning -- and pro-life should, therefore, not be a state prerogative, but a federally protected right.

11 posted on 06/11/2009 2:16:21 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Yuri Brezmenov (Tomas ScHuman), 1983, explains in detail what we are seeing today. First you will face-palm, then you will cry. I suggest watching all of it before it’s pulled from YouTube, again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8&feature=PlayList&p=52E369C842A46818&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=45


12 posted on 06/11/2009 2:18:34 PM PDT by ScreamingFist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals examined in Maloney v. Cuomo a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law prohibiting possession of “nunchucks,” a martial arts weapon, violated his 2nd Amendment rights. Sotomayor and the 2nd Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision that the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal laws and not to states or municipalities.

Sotomayor flunks legal logic 101: If the States can pass laws which nullify the Constitution (including the Amendments) then we would have anarchy. The States could pass laws, for example, which prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the press. The entire Constitution would be a joke, if it isn’t already. A book to read is “The Dirty Dozen” about 12 Supreme Court cases by Levy and Mellor.

Sotomayor is not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.


13 posted on 06/11/2009 2:20:36 PM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Then neither does the first amendment.


14 posted on 06/11/2009 2:20:45 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

If the States could pass laws which nullify the 2nd Amendment, then they could pass laws which prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the press, thereby gutting the 1st Amendment. In fact, the entire Constitution would be vulnerable to a multitude of State laws, and the existence of the United States as one nation would be in jeopardy.

Sotomayor is a threat to our Constitution.


15 posted on 06/11/2009 2:26:32 PM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Thanks for this (provocative) link!

“I figured that the Republicans can’t stop this nominee anyway, unless something big and nasty was unearthed. Methinks this is it.”

Or perhaps this, if our Republicans on the Senate Judiciary have the gonads to represent us Republicans, it appears they have the power to thwart the nomination:

“Law professor Michael Dorf wrote that the Senate Judiciary Committee has a rule that one member of the minority party must agree for a matter to be brought to a vote. Otherwise the matter will not be voted on. Dorf is a law professor at Cornell University and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.”
“We confirmed the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rule that the blog cited. Rule IV states, “The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.”

However, if on the committee, before I refused to vote for Sotomayor, I would ask her, “If, as you say it is undecided, what legal theory is required to apply the 2d to the states, and was such a theory required to apply the lst Ad. to the states; i.e., what is the difference between the two amendments?

“Government exists by the consent of the governed; however, if the governed are denied the right of self defense, those in power may exist in whatever form they choose.”


16 posted on 06/11/2009 2:26:50 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Shariah & facism violate the Constitution and by defintion are "domestic enemies".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
None of the Washington liberal elite seem to be aware of or remember the Place de la Concorde. Heads will be rolling soon in Washington because of Obama and I can assure all you Obama Kool-Aid drinkers Madame Hillary will be doing the knitting when the basket welcomes its collection of heads.
17 posted on 06/11/2009 2:30:13 PM PDT by hflynn ( The One is really The Number Two)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahithophel

I could swear you wrote “Sotomanure.”
Silly me.


18 posted on 06/11/2009 2:33:48 PM PDT by La Enchiladita ("You ain't seen nuthin' yet!!," B. Hussein Obama, the 20th Hijacker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
So she evidently feels the states are free to ignore the U.S. Constitution and proceed to strip away Second Amendment rights from U.S. citizens; in other words, the U.S. Constitution is subordinate to state law when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Obambi has picked a real winner here...

19 posted on 06/11/2009 2:37:34 PM PDT by Czar ((Still Fed Up to the Teeth with Washington))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

I could see saying that the 1st Ammendment doesn’t apply to the states, since the phrasing is “Congress shall make no law...” but it is nonsensical to believe that an Amendement that reads “the right of the people to *insert anything here* shall not be infringed” places a limit on who is prohibited from doing the restricting.


20 posted on 06/11/2009 2:38:02 PM PDT by sanchmo (If something cannot go on forever, it will stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
>> When the lefties are replacing a lefty on the Supreme Court with another lefty, the balance is preserved and the downside to the country is somewhat minimized. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. If Obama were filling Scalia's seat for example, this would be a Battle Royale <<

Right. That's why the Republicans went for a "battle royale" when Bill Clinton decided to change the "delicate balance of the court" by replacing the center-right Byron White with rabid leftist ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Oh wait...

21 posted on 06/11/2009 2:40:09 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

And she had no idea that abortion stops a beating heart.


22 posted on 06/11/2009 2:40:39 PM PDT by Carley (OBAMA IS A MALEVOLENT FORCE IN THE WORLD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
It’s noteworthy that our legal ruling class seems not to believe in the law.
23 posted on 06/11/2009 2:43:17 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Does her interpretation extend to the rest of the Bill of Rights? If not, why not?

Regards,
GtG

PS SS, you don't get to pick and chose your rights. It's a package deal.

24 posted on 06/11/2009 2:43:28 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Sotomayor is not qualified. Apparently she’s either never heard of the Supremacy Clause or chooses to ignore it.

Article VI, Clause 2:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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 notwithstanding.”


25 posted on 06/11/2009 2:46:12 PM PDT by PBinTX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Okay, the gloves are off.

Yep!

Wasn't something comparable to this tried during the Heinous' husbands term?

If I recall, it didn't work out so well for them, however these lifetime appointments IMO are the most crucial because of the term of office given.

Molon labe

26 posted on 06/11/2009 2:50:12 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Then neither does the first amendment.

Yeah, another "fart in church".

27 posted on 06/11/2009 2:51:28 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pleikumud

Thanks pleikumud, good info and helpful background, and very much agree with your conclusion!


28 posted on 06/11/2009 2:54:20 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PBinTX

The War Between The States (U.S. Civil War) was over states rights as opposed to federally mandated Constitutional rights. You know, that “all men are created equal’ stuff...

Owning another human being was a violation of the U.S. Constitution right from the ‘get go’. I’ve always been amazed that slavery, as economic necessity and as an institution in the South, lasted as long as it did.


29 posted on 06/11/2009 2:56:45 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Oh great, another moronic advocate for flushing the Constitution down the toilet....


30 posted on 06/11/2009 2:58:00 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

come on. didn’t you know. there is no law stating we must pay federal “income” taxes.

i never understood the whole hupla over the “tax cheats”.

;-)

(referring to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 of course)


31 posted on 06/11/2009 3:02:25 PM PDT by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
To make such a change stick, Sotomayor, if confirmed, would first have to wait for the court to hear a case that challenges the “Incorporation Doctrine” by which the Supreme Court extended the limitations set upon the federal government to the state government.

Until the “Incorporation Doctrine” ruling and subsequent rulings based upon it were made, states enjoyed the freedom to dictate prayer in public schools, indeed, declare a state religion, plus place limitations in behavior the federal government could not.

I doubt there's even the slightest chance of the court hearing a case that would overturn the “Indoctrination Doctrine”, be it a Democrat or Republican court.

32 posted on 06/11/2009 3:43:26 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Yes, I already regret sending my little $25 to Cornyn.


33 posted on 06/11/2009 3:43:48 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ahithophel

Does the GOP/and some southern/western democrats have a spine to vote her down?


34 posted on 06/11/2009 3:55:22 PM PDT by personalaccts (Is George W going to protect the border?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; 1Old Pro; aardvark1; a_federalist; abner; alaskanfan; alloysteel; alfons; ...

Time to become activists; write your Senator!


35 posted on 06/11/2009 4:03:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kromike
"Molon labe, Judge Latina."

That's Judge Sodom Mywhore to you!

36 posted on 06/11/2009 4:06:22 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

37 posted on 06/11/2009 4:11:51 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham ("I don't call 911" -- Chuck Norris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

So this means that states can also choose to outlaw abortion.


38 posted on 06/11/2009 4:13:21 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Already called my good senator. He is in agreement.
39 posted on 06/11/2009 4:16:37 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit (Two terms for politicians, one in office, one in jail.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

The amendments stand or fall together. They all apply or they don’t.


40 posted on 06/11/2009 4:17:45 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners. No mercy. 2010 awaits.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

This gal must have miised that day in ConLaw when they talked about the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine. It made the Bill of Rights specifically applicable to the states. She is a dolt and will get this seat only because of affirmative action, not because she is qualified.


41 posted on 06/11/2009 4:19:07 PM PDT by shankbear (Al-Qaeda grew while Monica blew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Technically the states are not allowed to ursurp the Con. The fact that SotovoteforObo figures that states have the right to violate the US Constitution is indicative of the decline of the US Constitution when liberal activist judges are allowed to rule against things they have no jurisdiction over, aka the US Constitution.

Sotostuckonstupid, in her former position, is already a proven disaster before she even gets to the SCOTUS, for she herself has already proven that she will deminish the authority of the office she now seeks, the highest of the Third Branch, to advance her liberal agenda.

I can only hope that either the full truth be told and Sotodelolaraza will be exposed for the radical racist she is.

But as I’ve said, she’ll get the nod, and in the end I either must accept that since I’m a white male - that there must be something wrong with me. I’ts either that or be labled by libtarded standards as being racist.

I can’t win. I guess that’s the point.


42 posted on 06/11/2009 4:21:49 PM PDT by ChetNavVet (Build It, and they won't come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

AMAZING the repercussions THIS sort of decision would have. Chaos being first and foremost as the states fall all over themselves seceding from the Union.


43 posted on 06/11/2009 4:25:17 PM PDT by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Sotomayor isn't the only judge who is pooping on the RKBA. The ENTIRE federal court system has been, right along, up to and including the Heller decision.

The RKBA exists independently from the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS said so in Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), a case about whether or not the 2nd amendment reiterates or embodies a right to conduct a parade without a parade permit. Presser said that if a parade was conducted with guns, then the 2nd amendment provides a right to parade without a permit.

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ...

But check out what Sotomayor (and literally - LITERALLY) all of the federal court judges say the Presser (parade permit) case stands for. 2nd Circuit, in Bach v Pataki:

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.
cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006).

Kind of like how Scalia, in Heller, said the Miller case supports the constitutionality of the 1934 NFA (for want of a factual finding (short barrel shotgun is useful for defense) the Miller case would have found the 1934 NFA to be unconstitutional), but that's a whole 'nother story.

44 posted on 06/11/2009 4:33:15 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pleikumud
"The States could pass laws, for example, which prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the press."

Using her logic, the states could also pass laws or amendments allowing slavery. How do you think that would go over with this White House? And, why isn't a reporter smart enough to ask Mr. Obama about his nominee's ludicrous decision?

45 posted on 06/11/2009 4:35:28 PM PDT by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; Squantos; Eaker; Travis McGee

She obviously cannot read plain English, to wit, “shall not be infringed.” With so many millions of citizens having a clear understanding of the term, there has to be a disconnect. ESL, eh? Ain’t diversity great?


46 posted on 06/11/2009 4:39:41 PM PDT by glock rocks (Being an optimist is getting to be quite a job these days...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Can this be true? Haven’t Hutchison and Cornyn already endorsed her?


47 posted on 06/11/2009 4:44:15 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

Now that’s an interesting post.


48 posted on 06/11/2009 4:45:15 PM PDT by glock rocks (Being an optimist is getting to be quite a job these days...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: shankbear
My understanding is that the Bill of Rights was not applied to the states at one time, but in increments from about 1895 to 1970. It may be that a couple of the amendments have never been applied yet to the states, including the Second.
49 posted on 06/11/2009 4:46:33 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

Unbelievable!


50 posted on 06/11/2009 4:54:17 PM PDT by Eaker (The Two Loudest Sounds in the World.....Bang When it should have been Click and the Reverse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson