XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
"Leif" wrote in message
news:1189827008.073154.291610@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 1:38 am, "Scout"
> wrote:
>> "Leif" wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189739690.866186.77670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 13, 3:00 pm, "Scout"
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Leif" wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1189707451.827623.145790@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Sep 13, 4:52 am, "Topp@Work" wrote:
>> >> >> "Spaz" wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:9LCdnZ1NOcJU5HXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> >> >> > "RSweeney" wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:tq2dnRvRTuoP9nXbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> >> >> > > 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.
>>
>> >> >> > That's true. So there's no reason the local government of San
>> >> >> > Francisco
>> >> >> > can't implement their own gun ban.
>>
>> >> >> Except it violates State law.....
>> >> >> And cities can not violate state law
>>
>> >> > Leif speaking: The SECOND AMENDMENT provides no reason why the local
>> >> > government of San Francisco can't implement their own gun ban.
>>
>> >> See 14th Amendment.
>>
>> >> Oh, I can hear you now claiming that the 2nd hasn't been incorporated.
>>
>> >> If that is your response, then kindly show me where the 14th allows
>> >> for
>> >> incorporation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Leif speaking: The 14th says nothing about incorporation,
>>
>> Correct, which means that there is no allowance for such a "selective
>> incorporation doctrine" to exist.
>>
>> > but if the
>> > Supreme Court had not used it for that purpose many of our present
>> > rights might not be enforceable against the states.
>>
>> Sorry, but they could have applied the 14th without any recourse to
>> selective, and limited, application of the 14th. They could actually have
>> read the 14th and noted that it applies IN FULL to the states. Instead
>> they
>> have perverted and subverted the 14th by accepting a principle that the
>> 14th
>> doesn't really mean what it says until SCOTUS gets around to actually
>> noting
>> that it does.
>>
>> > Article III,
>> > Section II, says, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in
>> > law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the
>> > United States..." The Supreme Court has the power to determine what
>> > the law, including the Constitution, means. I realize that you think
>> > it shouldn't have that power.
>>
>> Sorry, but SCOTUS can no more violate the terms of the 14th than they can
>> any other part of the Constitution. The 14th makes no provision that it
>> will
>> only apply in part, or for specific rights through some "selective
>> incorporation doctrine", but rather that was an invention of SCOTUS and
>> utterly unsupported by the Constitution. See the 10th Amendment for
>> details.
>>
>> I will simply note that you can't contest the 14th and have for your
>> defense
>> only the fact that SCOTUS hasn't incorporated the 2nd. Doesn't mean they
>> shouldn't have. Doesn't mean they can't. It also doesn't mean they won't.
>> You sound like a racist saying that racial discrimination is perfectly
>> fine
>> since SCOTUS hasn't applied the 14th to those violations.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Leif speaking: The 14th Amendment says nothing about the Bill of
> Rights.
Oh, then the BOR does NOT apply to the states and the states can thus
violate your freedom of speech, press, religion, due process and so on?
Sorry, but the 14th most certainly does address the BOR since that are among
the very protections that are being imposed upon the states.
> The Supreme Court, as cases have come up, has decided that
> under the amendment's "due process" clause certain rights must be
> enforced against the states as well as the federal government.
How can they do this when you just told me the 14th doesn't address the BOR?
Are they pulling this protection out of thin air, or is it more likely that
you are making up things as you go to make it sound like SCOTUS envokes this
authority rather than the 14th?
> If the
> court had not adopted that "selective incorporation" doctrine,
They would have been in compliance with the 14th Amendment, since they did,
they are not.
> the
> public would now have fewer rights under state laws.
Actually, they would have more since we wouldn't have to wait for SCOTUS to
get around to declaring that this right or that is actually protected and
the whole BOR would have been applied immediately rather than over some
unknown period of time. Heck we are still waiting for action on SCOTUS for
certain protections in the BOR to this day.
I will simply not that you still can not contest the Amendment, nor it's
application, and can only try vainly to suggest that it is up to SCOTUS and
that somehow their denial of our rights somehow means we are more protection
under state law.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
