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

Skip to comments.

McDonald v. Chicago Instant Analysis
JoshBlackman.com ^ | 03-02-2010 | Josh Blackman

Posted on 03/02/2010 11:31:04 AM PST by freedomwarrior998

The Court was not at all receptive to arguments on Privileges or Immunities but incorporation on Due Process is a slam dunk. More commentary soon.

Update:

Suffering through the bitter cold for nearly 14 hours (and being interviewed by Adam Liptak for the New York Times) was well worth the price to pay in order to witness the oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago. While I think incorporation through the due process clause is a slam-dunk, I find it unlikely that the Court will reach to overturn the Slaughter-House cases and reinvigorate the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Alan Gura began, noting that the framers of the 14th amendment made a promise to the McDonald family, that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizenship. Gura noted that the rights protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause are not trivial, and that contrary to the assertions of Slaughter-House, the war was not fought for protection of rights on the high seas.

Chief Justice Roberts interjected, and noted that Gura’s interpretation conflicts with Slaughter-House, and asked whether the “heavy burden” was satisfied in order to overturn that precedent. In many respects, the question of whether Roberts remains more loyal to stare decisis or originalism...

Curiously, Justice Scalia on no less than three occasions noted that the right to concealed carry would not be protected by the Second Amendment. I wonder if he was signaling further limitations to assuage Kennedy.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: banglist; mcdonaldvchicago; rkba; scotus; secondamendment
This is a good synopsis of everything that transpired. While I am breathing a sigh of relief that the Court doesn't appear to want to open the P&I Pandora's Box, I am troubled that the Court looks like it will issue an opinion without many teeth at all. If there is any dicta in the case along the lines of what Justice Scalia said, liberal States will take that as cart blanche to continue to deny any right to concealed carry.
1 posted on 03/02/2010 11:31:05 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Scalia seems right to me as a matter of constitutional interpretation. The exercise of rights can be regulated, and just because we have the right to carry weapons, doesn’t mean we have a right to conceal those weapons. Requiring that weapons be carried openly would not rise to a constitutional issue.


2 posted on 03/02/2010 11:36:51 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
liberal States will take that as cart blanche to continue to deny any right to concealed carry.

or worse than that, a buffet line of national 'common sense' regulations that will be forcefed upon the conservative states...

3 posted on 03/02/2010 11:37:05 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

“bearing arms” as in “the right to keep and bear arms” would seem to suggest that scalia is wrong when he says that the second amendment doesn’t protect one’s right to carry a concealed weapon. Is that not “bearing arms” and is that right not being infringed when a law is passed that states you may not “bear arms” in this manner? keeping arms is only half of the right.


4 posted on 03/02/2010 11:38:49 AM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

FYI


5 posted on 03/02/2010 11:39:33 AM PST by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Justice Scalia on no less than three occasions noted that the right to concealed carry would not be protected by the Second Amendment.

How in the world does anyone square that with the 2nd Amendment? Is concealed carry not bearing arms? Isn't the right not to be "infringed?"

6 posted on 03/02/2010 11:40:01 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (STOP the Tyrananny State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I agree with that. In the real “Old West”, open carry was never restricted (unless there was a range war active, and then they just required that you checked your weapons as you entered town). But concealing a weapon was illegal.

Odd that “open carry” seems so much worse today to the minds of most people.


7 posted on 03/02/2010 11:41:53 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
You cannot claim a Right that imposes damage or burden on another, but that isn't what we're asking here either.

Mandating concealed/open is an "infringement" either way. Keep and Bear doesn't specify, so the choice should be up to the individual carrying.

8 posted on 03/02/2010 11:44:09 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast; CharlesWayneCT
How in the world does anyone square that with the 2nd Amendment? Is concealed carry not bearing arms? Isn't the right not to be "infringed?"

CharlesWayneCT is correct in post 2 - a requirement that carrying arms be done openly would perhaps be unwise, but it would not be a violation of the second amendment. The second amendment recognizes a right to bear arms, but not necessarily a right to conceal those arms while bearing them.

9 posted on 03/02/2010 11:44:42 AM PST by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
The exercise of rights can be regulated,

Only in so much that exercising those right might or will bring harm to another, e.g. yelling fire in a theater, slander or libel.

The 2nd is the only one that states in part and finally, "shall not be infringed"

10 posted on 03/02/2010 11:46:09 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RC one

11 posted on 03/02/2010 11:48:48 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Illinois is a no carry state and the ‘right” as stated in the State Consitituion is “subject to” the state police.

“Section 22. Right to Arms
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

will the SCOTUS decision render the illinois state consitution “unconsitutionl” RE: Section 22?

thanks


12 posted on 03/02/2010 11:51:09 AM PST by stylin19a (Never buy a putter until you you first get a chance to throw it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

LOL. I just woke up. I need to go back to bed now.


13 posted on 03/02/2010 11:52:51 AM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
Tou'r confusing bear with bare

Bear: to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.

14 posted on 03/02/2010 11:53:04 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Odd that “open carry” seems so much worse today to the minds of most people

The wussification of Americans....the ones that believe we live in a civilized society and the police will protect you.

15 posted on 03/02/2010 11:56:59 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

I fear that this will end badly. We get incorporation, but big-fed winds up the winner. This reinforces the fact that the supreme court is not about protecting the constitution.


16 posted on 03/02/2010 12:02:30 PM PST by xmission (www.iwilldefendtheconstitution.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Reminds me of that commercial from Ally bank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWo-vDVajns

“Would you like to go for a ride on that bike? Okay!” Kid tries to leave the little enclosing lines drawn on the floor. “Whoa! If you want to take the bike out of this space, I’m gonna have to charge you a penalty.” “You can’t really ride in this little space.” “You can’t ride really FAR, haha.”
“Even kids know an offer shouldn’t come with ridiculous conditions.”

Same with rights.

You want to carry openly in the city where any mugger can see your weapon and grab it? Or just go about unarmed? I don’t. In some places I wouldn’t get much farther than that kid in the commercial, carrying openly.


17 posted on 03/02/2010 12:09:26 PM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (STOP the Tyrananny State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

I want the muggers & thugs GUESSING as to who might be carrying,

and choose a safer profession.


18 posted on 03/02/2010 12:12:27 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
I support the right to bare arms, especially in the summer.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

19 posted on 03/02/2010 12:12:33 PM PST by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
I support the right to bare arms, especially in the summer.

Mmmm, I do to, except when it comes to Michell, ma bell.

20 posted on 03/02/2010 12:17:02 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
If the SCOTUS rules as they should, then Illinois State law would be limited via Art 6 para 2 "Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".

As it should be...

21 posted on 03/02/2010 12:19:58 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm

I’d hit it (once ObamaCare is dead).


22 posted on 03/02/2010 12:21:17 PM PST by Lazamataz (Seriously. The only way Obama can possibly pull this out is to declare Martial Law before November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
I believe that in the "Old West", carrying a concealed weapon was considered dishonourable: the province of cheats, swindlers, and whores. Decent folk carried their weapons openly.
23 posted on 03/02/2010 12:21:23 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I agree. Where it rises to an issue is when they say you can’t carry one, period. And I see a potential catch 22 here.

What if they regulate or abolish concealed carry but, when you carry it openly, it is considered, in some places, to be inflamatory by its mere obvious presence, but if you conceal it, in thoughtfulness to others feelings, you have broken the law.

It is micromanagement, is what it is.


24 posted on 03/02/2010 12:21:48 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
While I am breathing a sigh of relief that the Court doesn't appear to want to open the P&I Pandora's Box

Why? Do you have something against The Constitution and freedom?

I am troubled that the Court looks like it will issue an opinion without many teeth at all. If there is any dicta in the case along the lines of what Justice Scalia said, liberal States will take that as cart blanche to continue to deny any right to concealed carry.

Agreed, but they have to keep it all middle-of-the-road to keep Kennedy on board.

They will almost certainly issue a blanket incorporation with very limited specifics (and, hopefully, very limited limits) and leave the rest to future courts.

It will be up to us to do two things: 1. bring cases on those specifics we care about (such as AWBs and CCWs using things like "arbitrary and capricious" as arguments) and 2. recognize that elections have consequences and Obama making appointments is quite different than even a RINO like McCain doing so.
25 posted on 03/02/2010 12:21:58 PM PST by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I want them to see me carrying. Let them try and sneak up on me. My wife can then get behind them and put a 147gr slug in their ear at 900fps.


26 posted on 03/02/2010 12:22:01 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
"The exercise of rights can be regulated,"

Only in so much that exercising those right might or will bring harm to another, e.g. yelling fire in a theater, slander or libel.

I would note that even though there are those restrictions on the 1st Amendment (and, btw, the yelling of "fire" in a theater is fine if there actually IS a fire there), that doesn't confer the power to a state or the feds to cut your tongue out or duct tape your mouth shut before entering the theater, just because you might shout "fire" or something else. In other words, "prior restraint" is not allowed...yet, that is EXACTLY what gun control is all about. I wish that Gura had brought this up in the argument.

27 posted on 03/02/2010 12:23:09 PM PST by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
I would support concealed carry for Michelle 0bama.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

28 posted on 03/02/2010 12:31:09 PM PST by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Filo
Why? Do you have something against The Constitution and freedom?

The Slaughterhouse cases were rightly decided. The 14th Amendment was never intended to usurp the rights of the people of individual States, nor was it intended to be used as a vehicle to allow radical wacko federal judges to "find" rights to healthcare, abortion and same-sex marriage.

Go over to DU. The libtards were hoping for a P&I interpretation for these very reasons.

29 posted on 03/02/2010 12:34:41 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

> “The Court was not at all receptive to arguments on Privileges or Immunities but incorporation on Due Process is a slam dunk.”

For those on this webpage who were blasting the NRA for “horning in” on Gura’s case, P&I was virtually all that Gura was arguing for (there were about 70 pages in his brief on that and 5 pages on Due Process). If it had not been for the NRA “horning in” this could have been a VERY bad day for gunowners.

Those same people should remember that Gura and his paymaster are Libertarians first, foremost, and always. The gun stuff is just a vehicle for them, not their central concern.


30 posted on 03/02/2010 12:39:29 PM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

Responsible people carrying guns causes no one else any harm, so cannot be regulated like yelling fire, etc.

What the left wants to say is that we can’t let responsible people carry, because then irresponsible people will carry, posing a potential for public harm.

Like you referred to, this is “prior restraint”.


31 posted on 03/02/2010 12:42:15 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Ancesthntr
Like you referred to, this is “prior restraint”.

Yep.

32 posted on 03/02/2010 12:52:36 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
Those same people should remember that Gura and his paymaster are Libertarians first, foremost, and always. The gun stuff is just a vehicle for them, not their central concern.

BINGO! (Although I would characterize them as liberaltarians.)

33 posted on 03/02/2010 12:52:37 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
The Slaughterhouse cases were rightly decided. The 14th Amendment was never intended to usurp the rights of the people of individual States, nor was it intended to be used as a vehicle to allow radical wacko federal judges to "find" rights to healthcare, abortion and same-sex marriage.

I can't argue with the overall Slaughterhouse decision but I do take issue with the narrowing of the meaning of P&I in the 14th.

The 14th was designed to ensure that freed slaves were guaranteed the individual rights and privileges that free men had prior to the Civil War.

Those rights were embodied in the Bill of Rights including in the 9th Amendment.

The narrowing of those rights to those of the United States (silliness like access to waterways!) from individual rights was a failure of Slaughterhouse.

The original intent and meaning of the 14th is quite clear.

So yes, there is risk of "found" rights as exists now with the 9th Amendment.

Go over to DU. The libtards were hoping for a P&I interpretation for these very reasons.

I can understand that. They are, after all, libtards and while they'd lose the gun control fight they'd be able to start so many more.

Yes a reversal of Slaughterhouse is a Pandora's Box. No it wouldn't be the disaster that most folks seem to think. It would, instead, be a return to the basic freedoms we enjoyed before that horrible ruling.
34 posted on 03/02/2010 1:58:42 PM PST by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
The Slaughterhouse cases were rightly decided. The 14th Amendment was never intended to usurp the rights of the people of individual States, nor was it intended to be used as a vehicle to allow radical wacko federal judges to "find" rights to healthcare, abortion and same-sex marriage.

I can't argue with the overall Slaughterhouse decision but I do take issue with the narrowing of the meaning of P&I in the 14th.

The 14th was designed to ensure that freed slaves were guaranteed the individual rights and privileges that free men had prior to the Civil War.

Those rights were embodied in the Bill of Rights including in the 9th Amendment.

The narrowing of those rights to those of the United States (silliness like access to waterways!) from individual rights was a failure of Slaughterhouse.

The original intent and meaning of the 14th is quite clear.

So yes, there is risk of "found" rights as exists now with the 9th Amendment.

Go over to DU. The libtards were hoping for a P&I interpretation for these very reasons.

I can understand that. They are, after all, libtards and while they'd lose the gun control fight they'd be able to start so many more.

Yes a reversal of Slaughterhouse is a Pandora's Box. No it wouldn't be the disaster that most folks seem to think. It would, instead, be a return to the basic freedoms we enjoyed before that horrible ruling.
35 posted on 03/02/2010 2:00:52 PM PST by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Filo

The Ninth Amendment doesn’t convey any substantive rights. If it did, we would no longer have a Republic, we’d be living in a judicial oligarchy. All you need to do is to find a sympathetic Federal Judge to decree that a Ninth Amendment right to _________ exists. The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction, it was merely a codification in the Constitution designed to ensure that the common law principal of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” would not be used to limit rights. Read Madison on the Ninth Amendment, he never intended it to be a vehicle for a judicial dictatorship, nor did he envision it granting substantive rights.


36 posted on 03/02/2010 2:19:04 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

i cannot be sure, but the “due process” position might not have been introduced into the proceedings had not the SCOTUS allowed the NRA their few minutes.


37 posted on 03/02/2010 2:31:32 PM PST by lrb111 (resist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Justice Scalia on no less than three occasions noted that the right to concealed carry would not be protected by the Second Amendment

Would love to hear what these people think the "right to keep and bear arms" really means?

Keep and bear arms in your safe? WTF?
38 posted on 03/02/2010 2:59:22 PM PST by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
The Ninth Amendment doesn’t convey any substantive rights.

I agree, but it does leave room for the discovery of substantive rights not included in the BoR, which was the point.

f it did, we would no longer have a Republic, we’d be living in a judicial oligarchy.

I disagree. I agree that it's possible, but I don't think it has, or could, work out that way in practice. The whole checks and balances thing works in our favor here.

All you need to do is to find a sympathetic Federal Judge to decree that a Ninth Amendment right to _________ exists.

And get that played up through the courts. I doubt that a frivolous example would make it very far.

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction, it was merely a codification in the Constitution designed to ensure that the common law principal of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” would not be used to limit rights.

Agreed. That is part of what the 9th means.

Read Madison on the Ninth Amendment, he never intended it to be a vehicle for a judicial dictatorship, nor did he envision it granting substantive rights.

I have and while Madison was certainly influential in this regard he isn't the final word.

The BoR was put in place to placate the anti-federalists and they intended to protect all rights from the Federal government. They were, in fact, loathe to enumerate any because they feared (rightly so) that the list would be considered complete.
39 posted on 03/02/2010 3:02:31 PM PST by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
Those same people should remember that Gura and his paymaster are Libertarians first, foremost, and always. The gun stuff is just a vehicle for them, not their central concern.

While I'm not carrying any water for Gura and his associates, I think that it is far more likely that he is a libertarian. Nor am I strictly a libertarian (and definitely not a Libertarian), though I've got libertarian leanings on a lot of issues (mainly because my chief concern is that government leave all of us the phock alone)...but the "gun stuff" is pretty critical to libertarian thought - trying to be free and enjoy liberty is a rather fruitless exercise without the ability to defend your life and rights, or those of your family and community.

Also, before anyone condemns Gura too much, let's try to remember that he got the Supreme Court to do what no other attorney has - to state that the right to keep arms ("bear" wasn't at issue in Heller) is a fundamental right. True enough, Heller was not everything that us pro-gun rights folks would have liked (far from it, in fact), but it drew a line in the sand that can never be crossed again - correction, GURA drew the line in the sand. And it is likely that in a few months time - thanks largely to Gura - the same standard will now apply in gun-rights $hitholes like Chicago, NYC, etc. - ultimately restoring the rights of tens of millions of our fellow citizens. Yes, it will take a few more cases to defeat the very high hoops that these localities will make people jump through to get a gun, but that will happen and we will have a far larger group of fellow gun owners than we presently do (which will necessarily make the goals of the hoplophobic control-freaks that much more difficult). Thanks, largely, to Gura. So cut the guy a bit of a break. Again, I'm not carrying his water - we aren't related, we aren't friends, I'm not employed by him, and I've never even met the guy...but facts are facts.

40 posted on 03/02/2010 3:31:37 PM PST by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Filo
14th Amendment Incorporation is an "interpretation" that is inconsistent with the text of the Amendment, was never intended by the writers and ratifiers of the Amendment, and wasn't "discovered" by activist courts until those writers and ratifiers were all safely in their graves.

If the authors of the 14th Amendment had intended for it to "incorporate" the first eight Amendments as restrictions upon the States, they could have easily written it to say so. They didn't.

Moreover, there can't possibly be a legal justification for "incorporating" portions of the 1st Amendment (which, by its own language, is restricted to apply only to "Congress" -- i.e., just for federal laws), and not the 2nd Amendment (which is worded much more broadly).

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." -Thomas Jefferson

A ruling on what the 14th Amendment means should be influenced by what it says, and by what it was intended to mean, when it was written and ratified. Unfortunately, that rarely happens.

The 5th Amendment says: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

The 14th Amendment says: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

If anyone really believes that 14th Amendment Incorporation was intended by the writers of the 14th Amendment, then he needs to explain why the 14th Amendment contains that due process clause restricting the States, which is identical in wording to the 5th Amendment's due process clause restricting the federal government. If Incorporation were intended, then the 14th Amendment would have no due process clause restricting the States, since the Incorporated 5th Amendment would obviously already do that.

It is a basic principle of legal construction that a legal provision should not be interpreted as being without meaning or effect if some other interpretation is plausible. The activist courts had to ignore that principle to invent 14th Amendment Incorporation.

The right ruling in this case would preserve the rights of state and local governments to restrict firearms, by tossing 14th Amendment Incorporation on the scrapheap of history. But that isn't going to happen.

41 posted on 03/02/2010 4:34:09 PM PST by ncdave4life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ncdave4life
14th Amendment Incorporation is an "interpretation" that is inconsistent with the text of the Amendment, was never intended by the writers and ratifiers of the Amendment, and wasn't "discovered" by activist courts until those writers and ratifiers were all safely in their graves.

I agree, but maybe not for the same reasons.

If the authors of the 14th Amendment had intended for it to "incorporate" the first eight Amendments as restrictions upon the States, they could have easily written it to say so. They didn't.

Actually they did. They just made it more general to include all natural rights enjoyed by free men.

Moreover, there can't possibly be a legal justification for "incorporating" portions of the 1st Amendment (which, by its own language, is restricted to apply only to "Congress" -- i.e., just for federal laws), and not the 2nd Amendment (which is worded much more broadly).

Exactly.

The right ruling in this case would preserve the rights of state and local governments to restrict firearms, by tossing 14th Amendment Incorporation on the scrapheap of history. But that isn't going to happen.

I disagree.

The isssue of duplicative wording aside, the 14th was clearly written to ensure that the states could not impinge upon the rights of newly freed slaves (or anyone else.)

The Bill of Rights was written to ensure that the various natural rights that the founders recognized were enshrined to prevent their infringement.

Yes the BoR was originally written to protect those rights only from the federal government. But, at the time, those same rights were already protected in each of the 13 State Constitutions.

Just as clearly, however, the 14th was written to extend that protection from the states and the rest of government.

The issue I have is that the amendment, once passed, inherently “incorporated” the entire BoR (save, perhaps, the 10th) and all remaining rights implied by the 9th.

The SCOTUS recognizing the rights piecemeal is a bogus construct.
42 posted on 03/02/2010 7:22:44 PM PST by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ncdave4life
Wrong, for 2 reasons:

First, read the debates surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment - the drafters were VERY specific that among the many wrongs that the proposed amendment was intended to correct was the disarming of the blacks who had recently been freed, yet who were having the basic right of self-defense being denied by the states of the former Confederacy. Let's not forget, this was the heyday of the KKK, and blacks who were disarmed (effectively all of them) were being lynched left and right. For a good read on this issue, consult with Stephen P. Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed." Its in a number of libraries, and is easily purchased through Amazon.

Second, you're wrong because the words of the 2nd Amendment are NOT limited to Congress, as are those of the 1st Amendment. Every single state that ratified the 2nd (i.e. the original 13 states) and every state that joined the nation thereafter, and in the process ratified the Constitution, agreed tot he terms of the 2nd. It is clear that it should apply - given an honest reading - to ALL levels of government. Here's why (besides the words themselves): The militia is composed of the body of the people, and is subject to federal call-up in the event of rebellion, invasion or other emergency. How can a state or local government interfere with the training and equipping of the militia, and thereby endanger the entire nation?

I understand where you're coming from, that you want the actual words of the Constitution to be the basis of our laws, not the whims of judges or justices. I want the same thing, as do many tens of millions of people. However, in this particular case you aren't correct because you haven't taken into consideration the factors mentioned above.

My position on gun rights is as follows: we citizens have been so oppressed for so long by the anti-gun control-freaks that I will take any victory against them that I can get. I'll take it by hook or by crook, the same way that they have stolen our rights for the last 76 years (on just the federal level, lots longer in some states). Being practical, we will never see that one perfect case that results in virtually all federal and state gun control laws being wiped away in a heartbeat. It simply won't happen. We have to take our rights back the same way that they were stolen from us: one salami slice at a time. Heller was one such slice - insufficient and unsatisfactory by itself, but very nice as a piece of a mosaic; McDonald will be similar in its effect, assuming that the USSC rules against Chicago (probably under Due Process, but I'll take whatever we can get).

43 posted on 03/03/2010 8:10:12 AM PST by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ncdave4life; Ancesthntr
Correction to Post #43 - it should have had the following at the very beginning:

The right ruling in this case would preserve the rights of state and local governments to restrict firearms, by tossing 14th Amendment Incorporation on the scrapheap of history. But that isn't going to happen.

44 posted on 03/03/2010 8:12:06 AM PST by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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