- Dec 11, 2018
- Reaction score
Mostly correct. AS I've said before, the Constitution has been abrogated to the extent it is no longer relevant any more; judges rule whatever they want, based on ideology, current fashion, and ideological whims. They're essentially useless as credible legal authorities and that has been the case since the Civil War and the following100= years of political hackery and corruption.Like Willhavtawaite, you have a hard to time discerning fact from opinion. Your above post is completely wrong. Constitutional analysis can get very complicated, so I will just give a broad synopsis. The Bill of Rights were meant to restrain the federal government not the states. Despite the The Privileges or Immunities Clause, it was not until the passage of the 14th amendment that certain amendments under the Bill of Rights were applied to the states. The operative provision under the 14th amendment was the “due process clause.” The due process clause was used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. These rights that applied to the states were called fundamental rights.You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.No, they were not.Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.
The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,
NOT the Militia
" 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. "no, that's a fact.That is your opinion.
the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.
Deal with it.
The First Amendment wasn't surrendered to the will of the states...... Freedom of Religion wasn't left up to the states.....the Bill of Rights covered Rights in existence....
As mentioned not all the amendments under the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
For instance, it was not until Duncan v. Louisiana in 1968 that the 6th amendment was applied to the states. The 6th amendment provides for jury trials in criminal matters.
Despite all the foot stomping and whining by conservatives on this issue, the second amendment never applied to the state or individuals until the Heller decision. Regardless, the Heller decision still left open the state to regulate firearms. Scalia wrote:
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sales.”
Now the interesting fact about Heller is that it uses the same logic as Roe v.Wade. It is the conservative version of Roe. The conservative court found “enumerated” rights in the Constitution to support their decision. Sound familiar?
There are still certain amendments that still do not apply to the states. The 7th amendment does not apply to the states. The 7th amendment calls for a jury trial for all all controversies over $20.00. That is why you can’t go to small claims court and demand a jury trial.
it not being relevant to you is your opinion and has no standing in the real world where it is very relevant,,