| Author | Post |
|---|
SDguy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | South Dakota USA |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 04:50 am |
|
As a personal right it should not matter what level of government violated his right it is still a guarantee that the constitution was designed to protect. What is wrong with this so called judge?
|
murphy2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19th, 2008 11:01 pm |
|
| This judge is obviously an idiot. The amendments where added in the constitution because the "states feared" a federal/central government. The amendments only apply to the states as a protection from the feds. He is a graduate of public school, I'm sure.
|
OldManMontgomery
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 09:08 pm |
|
This decision is good news.
What this means is the matter will eventually go to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). All the other civil rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (that is, U. S. Constitutional Amendments One through Ten) apply to the states as well as the Federal government. First Amendment Free Speech, Fourth Amendment Search and Seizures and so forth... all those apply to states. Already decided by SCOTUS.
Okay, it seems to be bad news, but in the long run it's good. As long as we get Senator McCain elected in November and protect the integrity and Constitutionally based nature of the Supreme Court. If Senator Obama gets elected, SCOTUS will go really, really bad.
What is goofy about this decision is SCOTUS has ruled a person of interest to the police must identify him or her self. I'd like to see the exact wording of the ruling regarding one's SSAN. Yeah, I know it was never supposed to be identification, but it is in fact one's national ID number.
Last edited on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 09:11 pm by OldManMontgomery
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 285 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 01:09 am |
|
OldManMontgomery wrote:
Okay, it seems to be bad news, but in the long run it's good. As long as we get Senator McCain elected in November and protect the integrity and Constitutionally based nature of the Supreme Court. If Senator Obama gets elected, SCOTUS will go really, really bad.
What is goofy about this decision is SCOTUS has ruled a person of interest to the police must identify him or her self. I'd like to see the exact wording of the ruling regarding one's SSAN. Yeah, I know it was never supposed to be identification, but it is in fact one's national ID number.
I've attached the decision for your information. In the next post, I'll attach the earlier decision respecting 2A.
Basically, insofar as the Constitutional claims are concerned, though there is much to disagree with, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the decision in regard to how most so called "conservative" Judges approach individual constitutional claims.
If you want these claims decided on a more substantive basis, you want moderate judges, not originalists or strict constructionists.
Attachment: Szymecki dismiss 2.pdf (Downloaded 6 times) Last edited on Sun Sep 21st, 2008 07:39 pm by The Donkey
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 285 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 01:11 am |
|
And here is the earlier decision regarding incorporation.
We should read it and weep!
Attachment: Szymecki dismiss 1.pdf (Downloaded 3 times)
|
Bookman
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 06:28 pm |
|
Okay, I'm still a little confuzzled on this one.
It's been ruled that the second amendment doesn't apply to states. Does that mean that they can also prohibit peaceful assembly, tell you where to worship (or prohibit it altogether), search you and your property and confiscate whatever they choose to, deny you trial by jury, force you to incriminate yourself, etc.?
And what about the 16th amendment? Why are we paying income taxes? And what about allowing anyone who is not a white male the right to vote? why don't we ignore that one too?
My point here is that if they can decide that about ONE of our rights, they can sure as  do it with any of the others. Either ALL of them apply to the states or NONE of them do.
|
KBCraig
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 439 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
Okay, so the judge ruled against incorporation of the 2nd, but surely that wasn't the only argument. He ruled the demand for SSN may have violated the 4th, but did he completely ignore the point that the entire arrest was an illegal search and seizure, because Chet was breaking no laws at the time?
|
yeahYeah
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Las Vegas, NV |
| Posts: | 430 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 06:59 pm |
|
most state constitutions contains "a right to keep and bear arms". except for kalifornia.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 07:12 pm |
|
KBCraig wrote: Okay, so the judge ruled against incorporation of the 2nd, but surely that wasn't the only argument. He ruled the demand for SSN may have violated the 4th, but did he completely ignore the point that the entire arrest was an illegal search and seizure, because Chet was breaking no laws at the time?
No - read the opinion carefully - demanding an SSN is unlawful under Section 7 of the federal privacy act. In Texas you all need to make sure that permit applications and the like do not violate this either. The problem with the 4th amendment claim is that the judge felt he did not have the power to delve that deeply into state law to rule if the ordinance was unlawful.
|
Statesman
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
Bookman wrote: If the 2A doesn't apply to the states, then who the DOES it apply to? This so-called judge needs to be checked for Alzheimer's
The Federal Gov't, as in Heller v.s. D.C.
|
cREbralFIX
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 05:05 pm |
|
Bookman wrote: If the 2A doesn't apply to the states, then who the DOES it apply to? This so-called judge needs to be checked for Alzheimer's
This is the whole problem with "incorporation" set by previous legal precedent.
The Constitution declares itself "the law of the land" -- yet SCOTUS ruled it is not (it's in Gun Rights and Gun Control by Kopel, et al).
So, here we are...courts saying RKBA at the Federal level doesn't affect state action because of a bad SCOTUS decision.
Yes, there really is a conspiracy and you can find it in the pages of law. If you don't believe me, then you need to read various laws, decisions, and so forth.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 05:16 pm |
|
cREbralFIX wrote: The Constitution declares itself "the law of the land" -- yet SCOTUS ruled it is not (it's in Gun Rights and Gun Control by Kopel, et al).
So, here we are...courts saying RKBA at the Federal level doesn't affect state action because of a bad SCOTUS decision.
Huh? The Bill of Rights was not written to constrain state power. How can pre-incorporation doctrine decisions be "bad"? Let's stay on track with the legal facts.
Footnote 23 of Heller invites incorporation, and we should soon get it.
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 285 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 05:39 pm |
|
40 yrs. ago, Justice White articulated the doctrine of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights with some strong disagreements (notably from Black and Douglas who thought the whole Bill should be incorporated).
However, it was pro-executive "law and order" judges on the 4th Circuit who found that the 2A was not incorporated.
To overturn them, it would take an en banc 4th Circuit, and some open-mindedness about how the 14th Amendment was meant to work.
|
cREbralFIX
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 08:39 pm |
|
Mike wrote: cREbralFIX wrote: The Constitution declares itself "the law of the land" -- yet SCOTUS ruled it is not (it's in Gun Rights and Gun Control by Kopel, et al).
So, here we are...courts saying RKBA at the Federal level doesn't affect state action because of a bad SCOTUS decision.
Huh? The Bill of Rights was not written to constrain state power. How can pre-incorporation doctrine decisions be "bad"? Let's stay on track with the legal facts.
Footnote 23 of Heller invites incorporation, and we should soon get it.
I cannot remember the case, but the court ruled state action isn't limited by the Federal Constitution. Seems kinda silly, but having multiple systems is what we currently have.
What matters is what is current practice. This is the reason why we need to incorporate the 2nd.
Whether incorporation is a good or bad thing is to be debated. Badnarik had some interesting ideas on the 14th A (he thinks it's bad) and talks about them in his video. He does it much better than I could in a forum post.
Last edited on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 08:44 pm by cREbralFIX
|
Sonora Rebel
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
| Common sense apparently does not apply to this Judge. As WRITTEN... the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE!
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 285 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 01:06 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Common sense apparently does not apply to this Judge. As WRITTEN... the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE!
If you want it interpreted that way, you want to elect Presidents who will appoint -- and Senators who will confirm -- more judges like Justices Black and Douglas.
I wonder whether any of the current lot have that much brass anymore
|
Sonora Rebel
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
The Donkey wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: Common sense apparently does not apply to this Judge. As WRITTEN... the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE!
If you want it interpreted that way, you want to elect Presidents who will appoint -- and Senators who will confirm -- more judges like Justices Black and Douglas.
I wonder whether any of the current lot have that much brass anymore
You are out of your cotton pickin' mind!
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 285 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 02:51 am |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: The Donkey wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: Common sense apparently does not apply to this Judge. As WRITTEN... the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE!
If you want it interpreted that way, you want to elect Presidents who will appoint -- and Senators who will confirm -- more judges like Justices Black and Douglas.
I wonder whether any of the current lot have that much brass anymore
You are out of your cotton pickin' mind!
Well, I guess that means you support selective incorporation. . . 
|
Sonora Rebel
Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 05:02 am |
|
| No... it means you're a MOONBAT!
|
The Donkey
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 285 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 12:48 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: No... it means you're a MOONBAT!
Judges are required to follow precedents established by higher courts.
As it stands, that means 2A and parts of 5A, and 6A not applying to the states.
You are the one who would have them following moonbeams.
|
Current time is 01:39 pm | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
