[Incorporation] Are States and Cities Bound by the Second Amendment? Sullum, Reason Mag.

imported post

The fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated via the due process clause of the 14th amendment on a case by case basis. So while they were written as limitations on the federal government, the court invented a way to apply them as limitations on the states as well. The 2A has not been incorporated because the case just hasn't come up.

The incorporation doctrine is a bad reading of the due process clause, but it is so entrenched in our jurisprudence that there is no doing away with it now. If the the rights guaranteed by the 2A meet the standards of incorporation, I'm sure they'll be applied to the states like the others.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

If you own 500 acres of beautiful land completely paid off, lakes and streams full of fish, woods full of game, farm your own veggies and need absolutely NOTHING from the outside, you are still liable to pay property tax. Why and for what? You need nothing. So you must then either workoff your own land, selling the fruits of your laborsto pay the taxes, or you must indenture yourself into the emloyment of another to earn the money to pay the taxes.

Fail to pay and ALL your property WILL be forfeit. All of it and you will be criminalized. Is that freedom? No. Is that liberty? No. Is that what we've become? Most resoundingly - Yes.

That is where we are today folks. Paraphrasing from Ben Hur "We keep you alive to serve this ship (of state).

Click to expand...

While your observations are true, I'd like to point outfor the states' rights people that real estate taxes come from LOCAL laws, not the federal government. I do not know if it is true in all states but fish and game, even on private property, are generally considered public assets thus you would need a license to harvest them (again this is a state imposed requirement). AFAIK the federal government is only interested in anyincome that your property might generate. If you are not involved in any commerce and utilize the resources for only your own needs then there should be no federal issue.

imported post

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.


I would think that this little gem in the California Constitution would in effect make incorporation of the Second Amendment irrelevant to California, as we supposedly already recognizeit as the "supreme law of the land".

imported post

Seems to me that, in most instances, states are MORE restrictive than the federal government.

imported post

hsmith wrote:

I really never understood why it wasn't. If the first is, and it clearly apples to individuals, why is the 2nd not when it clearly applies to individuals?

Click to expand...

Rights under the purported Amendment 14 are "incorporated" by the U.S. Legislator (per Civil Rights Acts) and Court Decisions. These citizens in this instant case fall under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government and are U.S. citizens (review Illinois FOID application and find the Subject being a U.S. citizen).

Natural Rights are held by "the original Citizens of the states" as are recognized:

The Constitution for the United States of America
Article. IV. - The States
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



One "citizen" is noted in law with a small cap "citizen" the other with large cap "Citizen".

Please make note that the "current Illinois Constitution of 1970" makes no Territorial Jurisdiction claim. Take a moment to examine past Illinois Constitutions of 1818, 1848 and 1870 Territorial Jurisdiction claims:



Beginning at the mouth of the Wabash river, thence up the same, and with the line of Indiana, to the northwest corner of said state; thence east with the line of the same state, to the middle of Lake Michigan; thence north, along the middle of said lake, to north latitude 42° and 30'; thence west to the middle of the Mississippi river, and thence down, along the middle of that river, to its confluence with the Ohio river; and thence up the latter river, along its northwestern shore, to the beginning.

-Illinois Constitution of 1818



ARTICLE I.

BOUNDARIES.

§ 1. The boundaries and jurisdiction of the state shall be as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the mouth of the "\Vabash river; thence IIp the same. and with the line of Indiana, to the northwest corner of said state; thence east, with the line of the same state, to the middle of lake Michigan; thence north along the middle of said lake, to north latitude 42° 30'; thence west to the middle of the Mississippi river, and thence down along the llliddle of that river to its confluence with the Ohio river; and thence up the latter riyer, along its northwestern shore, to the place of beginning: Provided, that this state shall exercise such jurisdiction upon the Ohio river as she is now entitled to, or such as may be agreed upon by this state and the state of Kentucky.

-Illinois Constitution of 1848



ARTICLE I

BOUNDARIES.

The boundaries and jurisdiction of the state shall be

as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the mouth of the

Wabash river; thence up the same, and with the line

of Indiana, to the northwest corner of said stare; thence

east, with the line of the same state, to the middle of

Lake Michigan; thence north, along the middle of said

lake, to north latitude 42° and 30'; thence west to the

middle of the Mississippi river, und thence down along

the middle of that river to its confluence with the Ohio

river, and thence up the latter river, along its northwestern

shore, to the place of beginning: Provided,

that this state shall exercise such jurisdiction upon the

Ohio river as she is now entitled to, or such as may

hereafter be agreed upon by this state and the state of

Kentucky.

- Illinois Constitution of 1870





Now compare and contrast to the current Illinois Constitution of 1970 (annotated for Legislators) @ http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/ILConstitution.pdf (This book includes the text of the 1970 Constitution as amended through the November 2004 election; commentary describing relevant court decisions, laws, and Attorney General's opinions, and a detailed index to the Constitution's text. It emphasizes the constitutional structures of state and local government; legislative powers and procedures; and limitations on statutes.) Surprise. No Territorial Jurisdictional Claim is made (nor a claim of Sovereign Immunity..) and this is very significant in law.

imported post

Bingo! BobCav, you hit it on the head. Very few people have theunderstanding of what you just said. If the people stopped to think about it. We never really own anything. You exist at there pleasure. I will not say what it's coming to. But I think it is in the back of everyones mind. But it's history, which repeats it self. But the sheeple can't see it.

imported post

There are two classes of citizens in this country. One being the original Citizens or Citizens of a State and the other falling "under the Jurisdiction thereof the Federal Government"by way of Amendment Fourteen.

One group "Citizens of a State" possess the Natural Rights the recent SCOTUS case DC v Heller spoke of and the other with "Incorporated" rights as U.S citizens. Incorporation occurs with Civil Rights Acts and decisions made by the Courts. It is important to note that the distinction is made by "citizen behavior", Independent of Federal Benefits or dependency upon the Federal Government i.e. Social Security or Public Schools, Student Loans, etc.

Please review:


[align=center]Did the 14th Amendment do away with State Citizenship?


[/align]
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 591 [1979].

The answer is absolutely not.

In fact the leading and controlling case on State Citizenship and United States Citizenship is the Supreme Court case, The Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wallace 36: 21 L.Ed. 394 [1873]). In this case, the Supreme Court distinguishes between State Citizenship and United States Citizenship.

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics of the individual." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74.

"The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally." Cases In Constitutional Law by Robert F. Cushman, 5th Edition, pp. 250-251 (College Law Textbook) [1979].

"Citizenship is elaborated in two privileges and immunities clauses of the United States Constitution. . . . The Slaughter-House Cases [1873] 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, emphasized the distinct character of federal and state citizenship. Slaughter-House held that privileges and immunities conferred by state citizenship were outside federal reach through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . Federal citizenship was seen as including only such things as interstate travel and voting. While subsequent decisions have extended the meaning of citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment, Slaughter-House is still controlling in that it precludes use of privileges and immunities language in protecting citizens by federal authority." Constitutional Law Deskbook - Individual Rights, by Chandler, Enslen, Renstrom; Second Edition, p. 634 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1993).

"The Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. Slaughter-House Cases." 103d Congress, 1st Session, Document 103-6: The Constitution of the United States of America; Analysis And Interpretation: Annotations Of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 29, 1992, p. 1566. 1

In addition, the Supreme Court in The Slaughter-House Cases concluded that there are two citizens under the Constitution of the United States:

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.

Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 73-74.

"The expression, Citizen of a State, is carefully omitted here. In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, it had been already provided that 'the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' The rights of Citizens of the States [under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1] and of citizens of the United States [under The Fourteenth Amendment] are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, recently decided by the Supreme court. The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." United States v. Anthony: 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830 (Case No. 14,459) [1873]. 2

"This provision [The Fourteenth Amendment] protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. See Slaughter-House Cases 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)." Jones v. Temmer: 829 F.Supp. 1226, 1232 [1993].

Therefore, State citizenship and United States citizenship are provided for in the Constitution of the United States. A citizen of a state is to be found at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States whereas a citizen of the United States is located at the Fourteenth Amendment.
_________________________________

1 "... ndoubtedly in a purely technical and abstract sense citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the United States." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 [1897] get case

2 "Appellant does not invoke the commerce clause, and is neither a citizen of a state nor of the United States within the protection of the privileges and immunities clauses of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (US) 168, 177, 19 L ed 357, 359; Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 187, 31 L ed 650, 653, 8 S.Ct. 737, 740, 2 Inters Com Rep 24; Selover, B. & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126, 57 L ed 146, 152, 33 S.Ct. 69, 72." Asbury Hospital v. Cass County N.D.: 326 U.S. 207, 210-211 [1945] get case . © Copyright 2005 Daniel Joseph Goodman