So now it's Indiana's turn...

[jamil]

This was an interesting read.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Really? How do you figure?

The second amendment doesn't use "Congress shall make no law..." or any similar construct. It says, "the right of the people shall not...", implying that the right exists inherently, and shall not be infringed by any entity subject to the Constitution (which would be all levels of government, and all of "We The People").

And if it wasn't clear enough already, incorporation made it moreso.

Georgia attempted to pass a handgun ban into law in 1837. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, in no uncertain terms (Nunn v State (GA):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia

1st Nunn is a GA supreme court ruling not the US supreme court. Per SCOTUS in Cruikshank,

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone...

...For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."

Or perhaps you can read the words of the authors to determine their intent which can be found in the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

[SIZE=+1]THE[/SIZE] Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

[SIZE=+1]RESOLVED[/SIZE] by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
[SIZE=+1]ARTICLES[/SIZE] in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

[chipbennett]

1st Nunn is a GA supreme court ruling not the US supreme court. Per SCOTUS in Cruikshank,

SCOTUS is wrong there. Natural rights are inherent, and any State that attempts to infringe upon them is just as wrong as the federal government attempting to do so.

Or perhaps you can read the words of the authors to determine their intent which can be found in the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

There's nothing in there that says that "shall not be infringed" implies "by the federal government", or that "shall not be infringed" does not apply to the several States.

 

[Spear Dane]

SCOTUS is wrong there. Natural rights are inherent, and any State that attempts to infringe upon them is just as wrong as the federal government attempting to do so.



There's nothing in there that says that "shall not be infringed" implies "by the federal government", or that "shall not be infringed" does not apply to the several States.

The whole document is about the Federal government. I don't know why you think it's not, but it is. It is understood. This is taught in basic civics class in junior or high school. The prevailing mood of the country at the time was distrust of centralized power and indeed the federal government was quite weak when it came to internal matters. This lasted until the Civil War (States Rights and all that) and Lincoln. From that point to today the Federal government has steadily increased in power.

 

[chipbennett]

The whole document is about the Federal government. I don't know why you think it's not, but it is. It is understood. This is taught in basic civics class in junior or high school. The prevailing mood of the country at the time was distrust of centralized power and indeed the federal government was quite weak when it came to internal matters. This lasted until the Civil War (States Rights and all that) and Lincoln. From that point to today the Federal government has steadily increased in power.

So your State is free to enter treaties, and mint coinage?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

SCOTUS is wrong there. Natural rights are inherent, and any State that attempts to infringe upon them is just as wrong as the federal government attempting to do so.


There's nothing in there that says that "shall not be infringed" implies "by the federal government", or that "shall not be infringed" does not apply to the several States.

I won't disagree with you that it is wrong, but I do disagree that the Bill of Rights put restrictions on the individual states. Reread the first paragraph of the preamble,

[SIZE=+1]THE[/SIZE] Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

notice the use of the term Government in a singular manner, not a plural manner which would include the States. It even differentiates between the States and the Government.

So your State is free to enter treaties, and mint coinage?

Nope, because the Constitution is a grant of limited powers to the fed govt. One of their limited powers is the sole authority to mint coinage or enter into treaties. Simply because it grants sole power in limited aspects to the fed govt does not mean that it was intended to apply to the states.

 

[chipbennett]

I won't disagree with you that it is wrong, but I do disagree that the Bill of Rights put restrictions on the individual states. Reread the first paragraph of the preamble, notice the use of the term Government in a singular manner, not a plural manner which would include the States. It even differentiates between the States and the Government.

The Bill of Rights concerns itself with individual rights and liberties, not the federal or state government.

Nope, because the Constitution is a grant of limited powers to the fed govt. One of their limited powers is the sole authority to mint coinage or enter into treaties. Simply because it grants sole power in limited aspects to the fed govt does not mean that it was intended to apply to the states.

How can the constitution enumerate sole authority for something, without constraining the several States with respect to that thing?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The Bill of Rights concerns itself with individual rights and liberties, not the federal or state government.



How can the constitution enumerate sole authority for something, without constraining the several States with respect to that thing?

The Bill of Rights concerns itself with what the Fed govt cannot do with regards to individual rights, and since the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine most of it applies to the states.

Because the states ceded that authority to the fed govt. along with the rest of the limited powers which the US govt has. In other words the Constitution did not constrain the several States, the States constrained themselves.

You also might read the Slaughterhouse cases.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The constitution never applied only to the federal government. It is impossible that it could ever have applied only to the federal government, or that it was intended to apply only to the federal government. There are explicit references to authority enumerated to and withheld from the States.

How so? If your contention is correct, why did the respective states mirror much of the language of the Bill of Rights? Are you saying the were doubling down with redundant language? That makes not a lick of sense. If it was universally understood that the BoRs also bound the states then couldn't the states simply forego stating essentially the same thing?

 

[chipbennett]

How so? If your contention is correct, why did the respective states mirror much of the language of the Bill of Rights? Are you saying the were doubling down with redundant language? That makes not a lick of sense. If it was universally understood that the BoRs also bound the states then couldn't the states simply forego stating essentially the same thing?

First, not all states even have RKBA provisions in their constitutions. Second, several such provisions were added after the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, which implicitly incorporated the entire BOR to the several states:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140703/guarantees-of-the-right-to-arms-in-stat

I suspect that the provisions were added as a further bulwark against those who (then, as today) wanted to infringe upon RKBA.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

First, not all states even have RKBA provisions in their constitutions. Second, several such provisions were added after the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, which implicitly incorporated the entire BOR to the several states:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140703/guarantees-of-the-right-to-arms-in-stat

I suspect that the provisions were added as a further bulwark against those who (then, as today) wanted to infringe upon RKBA.

Correct that not all states have RKBA in their constitutions, which is why up until McDonald infringements on that right were upheld. Do you have any evidence other than your own beliefs that what you state is right? I and others have listed why you are incorrect, here are a few more supreme court cases for you to peruse, presser v IL, miller v TX.

Also per SCOTUS the 14th did not incorporate the entire BoR to the states, there is still several rights mentioned in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that have not been incorporated to the states.

 

[chipbennett]

Correct that not all states have RKBA in their constitutions, which is why up until McDonald infringements on that right were upheld. Do you have any evidence other than your own beliefs that what you state is right? I and others have listed why you are incorrect, here are a few more supreme court cases for you to peruse, presser v IL, miller v TX.

Also per SCOTUS the 14th did not incorporate the entire BoR to the states, there is still several rights mentioned in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that have not been incorporated to the states.

I'm not wrong. The Supreme Court is wrong, if they do not interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in any way other than the absolute that it is.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm not wrong. The Supreme Court is wrong, if they do not interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in any way other than the absolute that it is.

Try reading Barron v Baltimore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

 

[chipbennett]

Try reading Barron v Baltimore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

Again, the Supreme Court is wrong. Natural, unalienable rights are natural, unalienable, and constitutionally protected against infringement by all levels of government - at the very least, the right to keep and bear arms, as-protected by the second amendment.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Again, the Supreme Court is wrong. Natural, unalienable rights are natural, unalienable, and constitutionally protected against infringement by all levels of government - at the very least, the right to keep and bear arms, as-protected by the second amendment.

Once more do you have anything other than "I say so" to show that the BoR applied to the states before the 14th Amendment and subsequent incorporation of most of it, or was intended to? I've gave you links to multiple SCOTUS rulings from various courts over a spread of 60 years or so. Why would the McDonald case have been so important if it was as you say? Even SCOTUS in that case said as much that up until then the 2nd didn't apply to the states.

While I agree with you that they should be protected against infringement by all levels of govt, the BoR did not do that up until selective incorporation.

 

[chipbennett]

Once more do you have anything other than "I say so" to show that the BoR applied to the states before the 14th Amendment and subsequent incorporation of most of it, or was intended to? I've gave you links to multiple SCOTUS rulings from various courts over a spread of 60 years or so. Why would the McDonald case have been so important if it was as you say? Even SCOTUS in that case said as much that up until then the 2nd didn't apply to the states.

While I agree with you that they should be protected against infringement by all levels of govt, the BoR did not do that up until selective incorporation.

I think I have been forthright in admitting that I'm not even attempting to argue from precedent case law. My premise is that the Constitution is self-explanatory, and SCOTUS, comprised of fallible humans, are subordinate to the Rule of Law (as defined by the self-explanatory Constitution). SCOTUS usurped "judicial review" authority when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution and BoR, and have been making government self-serving rulings ever since.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think I have been forthright in admitting that I'm not even attempting to argue from precedent case law. My premise is that the Constitution is self-explanatory, and SCOTUS, comprised of fallible humans, are subordinate to the Rule of Law (as defined by the self-explanatory Constitution). SCOTUS usurped "judicial review" authority when the ink was barely dry on the Constitution and BoR, and have been making government self-serving rulings ever since.

Notwithstanding case law, you have put forward no evidence of your point of view other than "I said so".

Where in the Constitution do you get that the first 8 Amendments apply to the states, or should I say applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment? If they did what was the purpose of Sec 1 of the 14th?

Why would the states have wanted a BoR, if they were worried about state matters? Wouldn't it have been easier to craft them into their own Constitutions (which most of them did) rather than subject them to the wishes of the other states?