5-4: SUPREMES EXTEND GUN RIGHTS NATIONWIDE

RCCL wrote: I'm blown away that any justice voted against this.

Our amendments are not up for decision, nor is their "intent" to be decided in a court of law when the intent is as clear as day.

The founding fathers were unclear about some things, like what "cruel and unusual punishment" is... but our right to bear arms is black and white. There's no grey area, and no reason why four justices should have voted against this. I don't care what political affiliation you are, you're either saying "yes, I ratify the constituion and uphold the law of our land" or "No, I don't care what the constitution says, I am ruling unconstitutionally".

Every justice that voted against this should be run off the bench on a rail.

And what intent do you speak of RCCL? That the original intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to prohibit the federal government alone or any government at all from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms?

The earliest rulings issued by the Supreme Court were very clear that the Bill of Rights applied solely to the federal government, not the governments of the states. You possess no right to a jury trial in civil cases under Colorado state law, otherwise there would be no small claims courts where a judge and a judge alone could issue a ruling - even small claims cases would have to have a jury empaneled to render a verdict if the states were bound by Amendment 7. There are states in this union which have no need of a grand jury indictment before prosecuting someone accused of murder because their state laws do not require it. As mentioned earlier, the state of Connecticut had a state supported religion until 1818 and Massachusetts state law required every citizen of that state to belong to and support a church of their choosing until 1833. Neither state would have been able to do this if the 1st Amendment was always applicable to the states as well as the federal government. The 1st Amendment starts with the words "Congress shall make no law...", a clear reference to exactly whom the amendment placed the restrictions upon - the Congress of the United States of America.

The argument continues, outside of the Supreme Court, over whether or not the 14th Amendment granted the federal government the authority to require the states to recognize the rights enumerated in Amendments 1-8 as well as the federal government, but there is no question that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment that the states were not bound by the 2nd Amendment, or the 1st or any of them at all. Abolitionists were prohibited from distributing anti-slavery material in many of the Southern states prior to the Civil War, which clearly they would not have been able to do if the 1st Amendment was always applicable to the states and the federal governments. The prohibition against the federal government wasn't even there until 3 years after the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state (New Hampshire) in June 1788 but the first 10 Amendments were not ratified until December 1791.

Don't get me wrong, if the nation is going to cut and paste which amendments are applicable to the states as well as the federal government I believe the 2nd should be one of those which is included as applicable to both, but it was clearly not the intention of the founding generation that such should be the case and as such I hold that all of the incorporation rulings, including this one, are outside of the authority of the Supreme Court to decide from the perspective of original intent.

The four -should be expelled from this country. And if
ever a future 5-4 against our rights. The voters of
Supreme Court will rule themselves Immune from any
wrong doing-under past paste and cut court cases that
watered down Constitutuional rights.

Who allowed all that chipping away at our rights

Tilt wrote: The four -should be expelled from this country. And if
ever a future 5-4 against our rights. The voters of
Supreme Court will rule themselves Immune from any
wrong doing-under past paste and cut court cases that
watered down Constitutuional rights.

Who allowed all that chipping away at our rights

That makes sense. Where is the Loop song when we need it?

PrintSmith wrote:

RCCL wrote: I'm blown away that any justice voted against this.

Our amendments are not up for decision, nor is their "intent" to be decided in a court of law when the intent is as clear as day.

The founding fathers were unclear about some things, like what "cruel and unusual punishment" is... but our right to bear arms is black and white. There's no grey area, and no reason why four justices should have voted against this. I don't care what political affiliation you are, you're either saying "yes, I ratify the constituion and uphold the law of our land" or "No, I don't care what the constitution says, I am ruling unconstitutionally".

Every justice that voted against this should be run off the bench on a rail.

And what intent do you speak of RCCL? That the original intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to prohibit the federal government alone or any government at all from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms?

The earliest rulings issued by the Supreme Court were very clear that the Bill of Rights applied solely to the federal government, not the governments of the states. You possess no right to a jury trial in civil cases under Colorado state law, otherwise there would be no small claims courts where a judge and a judge alone could issue a ruling - even small claims cases would have to have a jury empaneled to render a verdict if the states were bound by Amendment 7. There are states in this union which have no need of a grand jury indictment before prosecuting someone accused of murder because their state laws do not require it. As mentioned earlier, the state of Connecticut had a state supported religion until 1818 and Massachusetts state law required every citizen of that state to belong to and support a church of their choosing until 1833. Neither state would have been able to do this if the 1st Amendment was always applicable to the states as well as the federal government. The 1st Amendment starts with the words "Congress shall make no law...", a clear reference to exactly whom the amendment placed the restrictions upon - the Congress of the United States of America.

The argument continues, outside of the Supreme Court, over whether or not the 14th Amendment granted the federal government the authority to require the states to recognize the rights enumerated in Amendments 1-8 as well as the federal government, but there is no question that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment that the states were not bound by the 2nd Amendment, or the 1st or any of them at all. Abolitionists were prohibited from distributing anti-slavery material in many of the Southern states prior to the Civil War, which clearly they would not have been able to do if the 1st Amendment was always applicable to the states and the federal governments. The prohibition against the federal government wasn't even there until 3 years after the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state (New Hampshire) in June 1788 but the first 10 Amendments were not ratified until December 1791.

Don't get me wrong, if the nation is going to cut and paste which amendments are applicable to the states as well as the federal government I believe the 2nd should be one of those which is included as applicable to both, but it was clearly not the intention of the founding generation that such should be the case and as such I hold that all of the incorporation rulings, including this one, are outside of the authority of the Supreme Court to decide from the perspective of original intent.

Printsmith,

You make a very good point, and you made a very good point on PC along the same lines, I believe... and I should have considered it when I originally wrote my post.

The documents that define our country have some very specific statements as to what rights are guaranteed at a federal level. Those rights should carry down to each individual state because they are protections that are granted to every citizen of our nation. The states should have no ability to overrule these laws locally.

Outside of those, however, the State and Federal government need to stay out of each other's business. I'm typically a huge proponent of State's rights, but this is the second amendment. I do not have an argument or complaint when the federal government overthrows State Law on the grounds of a constitutional amendment.

RCCL wrote: The documents that define our country have some very specific statements as to what rights are guaranteed at a federal level. Those rights should carry down to each individual state because they are protections that are granted to every citizen of our nation. The states should have no ability to overrule these laws locally.

I parsed this out because I think it addresses what I believe is a fundamental flaw in the modern day beliefs of the people who populate this land. I addressed this a little bit in a thread I started right before Independence Day regarding the Pledge of Allegience, but I think it bears revisiting.

This is not the Republic of America, it is the United States of America. We are a union of 50 sovereign states, not simply a single sovereign nation. What you and I enjoy is essentially dual citizenship. We are citizens of the sovereign state of Colorado and citizens of the United States of America. In order to be in the union of states, each state must have a republican form of government and a state constitution.

As noted earlier, many of the states did indeed have a state supported religion at the time the Constitution was written and ratified. The federal prohibition against doing the same was to ensure that the state in which the Presbyterian religion was the state religion were not forced to support a national state religion which might be Methodist, or Catholic, and that they would not be required to pass a religious test to be of that religion to be able to represent their state in the national Congress. But clearly the founding generation never intended to prohibit the state of Connecticut from having a state religion or for Massachusetts to require everyone be a registered member of a church and to support that church. Why? Because those individual states were every bit as sovereign as the union of the states was and it was intended that the federal government would not have superior sovereignty outside of the very limited areas contained within the body of the Constitution unless the people themselves granted that authority to the federal government.

While true that many of the prohibitions placed upon the federal government were already contained in many of the state constitutions or charters, by no means were all of those prohibitions ever meant to apply to the individual sovereign states, they were chains upon the federal government alone.

So the question becomes whether or not the people transferred to the federal government the authority to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states with the passage of the 14th Amendment or if that amendment was simply a granting of equality of federal citizenship rights to every citizen of the nation regardless of skin color or former involuntary servitude. Amendment 13 outlawed slavery anywhere within the United States, but it was the 14th which made the former slaves citizens of the United States of America, which by default granted them citizenship in the individual states in which they lived since a citizen of the United States becomes a citizen of any state within the union when they choose to reside within that state.

It is absolutely legal for the state of Massachusetts to require every citizen of that state to purchase health insurance, but the same cannot be said with regards to the federal government. If you agree with that statement then it would be logically inconsistent to insist that the 2nd Amendment, or any of the first 8, applies to the states. Conversely, if you disagree with that statement then it is logically inconsistent to insist that the 2nd Amendment, or any of the first 8, is not also a prohibition against the states.

The nonsense that is known as the selective incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court is nothing more than an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. Can you logically argue that if the 2nd Amendment applies to the states that the 7th doesn't as well? If the 7th is applied to the states, then every civil court must require a jury to be empaneled, even the small claims courts. Do you think that this was the intent of the founding generation? History tells us this is not the case, and the history of the 14th Amendment as argued and discussed prior to its ratification tells us that it wasn't the intent of the 14th Amendment to change this.