Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: ACCOUNTABILITY

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
    42 U.S.C. Chapter 21
    SUBCHAPTER I--GENERALLY
    Sec. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    (R.S. Sec. 1979; Pub. L. 96-170, Sec. 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284.)



    The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations

    Article VI, U.S. Constitution
    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.



    The Supreme Court Ruling that reasonable regulations can be made is a direct violation of Article VI since any regulation is an "infringement" and reasonable is very subjective. I would hate to read about another victim but when it happens; I would like to read about the family filing suit against judges, legislators, police and everyone that infringed on the victim's right to bear arms.:X

    S.E.WI

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    It appears that you are trying to argue Constitutional law and Federal law against the actions of a State.

    The Second Amendment has not yet been 'incorporated' against the States into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution and Bill of Rights as they are written (or ab initio or per se or whatever) have no effect on the States.

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights as they are written (or ab initio or per se or whatever) have no effect on the States.

    say what?????

    If they have no effect on the states, then what would be the point at all?

    Considering nearly every citizen of this country resides in a state, if the constitution and bill of rights had no effect on the states than it would be meaningless?

    Am I misunderstanding your statement?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    COTUS Art. I Sets/limits the power of the Legislature. Art. II refers to POTUS. Art. III SCOTUS Art. IV Legislative power of the States. Art. V Amendments. Art VI Federal power. Art VII Ratification

    BoR, Amd I, for instance, starts "Congress shall make no law..."

    Considering nearly every citizen of this country resides in a state, if the constitution and bill of rights had no effect on the states than it would be meaningless?
    The tip of the iceberg; have you ever heard of a 'federal citizen'? This concept stems from the Fourteenth Amendment into which the Second must be incorporated to have effect against the States and as a civil right.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    If they have no effect on the states, then what would be the point at all?
    The States United were originally sovereigns themselves. Only after Lincoln killed Federalism have the States knelt - kowtowed - to the Leviathan.

    see for example the movie 'John Adams'

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    The tip of the iceberg; have you ever heard of a 'federal citizen'? This concept stems from the Fourteenth Amendment into which the Second must be incorporated to have effect against the States and as a civil right.
    ok so i went and did a little digging and understand what you are saying here...

    The Second Amendment has not yet been 'incorporated' against the States into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution and Bill of Rights as they are written (or ab initio or per se or whatever) have no effect on the States.
    But as a matter of practice, people are using the constitution and the bill of rights in the court system? Heller for example... Cases move from the state court courts to federal courts and the federal supreme court?

    Heller, for example bases its decision on the second amendment? So why then wouldn't a person be able to assert language in the constitution and bill of rights to make their case? Courts recognize it as law (regardless of wether it ever was or wasn't incorporated?)

    Taking a step back and approaching this from a different angle? What court could assert that I don't have the right to free speech?

    If my local PD arrests me for giving a speech on something they don't like, our federal constitution and bill of rights would certainly be used in my defense? And a court would certainly recognize that? A court isn't going to say "well, the state constitution says"

    And a state can't have laws that conflict with the federal constitution? The bill or rights says we have the right to free speech, but the wisconsin constitution doesn't, so we don't?

    Anyway.. I understand this is muddy water to wade into but I'm interested.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Re 'free speech'; none, the First Amendment has been incorporated as a civil right.

    Try starting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    People in Washington DC don't live in a "state" they live in a federal enclave known as the "District of Columbia". It's not really a city...not a state...they don't even get any sort of congressional representation.

    They are, however, subject to direct oversight by the US Congress.


    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    Very interesting. Thanks Doug.

    What a cluster-****...

    Is it accurate to say that when it comes right down to it, we are at the mercy of the courts and stare decisis?

    It doesn't seem like the US constitution nor the Bill of Rights means **** until a court decides to incorporate them into civil rights?

  10. #10
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    People in Washington DC don't live in a "state" they live in a federal enclave known as the "District of Columbia". It's not really a city...not a state...they don't even get any sort of congressional representation.

    They are, however, subject to direct oversight by the US Congress.

    Well, they do get a "sort" of congressional representation-- i.e., Eleanor Holmes Norton-- non voting.

    BTW--- from her website:

    Washington D.C.--Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said she will ask members of both parties to decline to be a part of "a demeaning and disrespectful" effort to discharge from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, H.R. 1399. "This bill, unworthy of any member of Congress, usurps and seeks to interrupt the District's statutory home rule right to rewrite its own gun laws as directed by the Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia," Norton said. "District officials moved quickly to comply with the Supreme Court's decision by passing emergency legislation, which will be in effect for 90 days as the city continues to develop new permanent gun laws. Discharging a bill from committee is such a grave departure that it has very rarely even been attempted and represents an affront to the full committee, quite apart from violating every principle of American self-government," Norton said. "Worse, this attempt needlessly seeks to supersede District officials while they are in the process of writing legislation to comply with the Supreme Court decision."
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    It's not really a city...not a state...they don't even get any sort of congressional representation.
    Eleanor Holmes Norton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Holmes_Norton Delegate to Congress and NOT 'congresswoman'!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    OK...."any sort" was an exaggeration.

    They are under-represented in congress with only a non-floorvoting delegate and no senatorial representation.

    Happy?
    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
    To which I was referring. Sorry

  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    OK...."any sort" was an exaggeration.

    They are under-represented in congress with only a non-floorvoting delegate and no senatorial representation.

    Happy?
    I wasn't unhappy. Although I am somewhat happy that a so-called "representative" such as E.H. Norton has no vote.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Maybe somebody can fill me in with the history of DC, but it was designed to house our capital and government buildings. We really need to just evacuate the place and leave it entirely as a federal government property for conducting business. No residences (except temporary residences for representatives and the white house) and no social services. That place is just out of control.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    First, I am glad that there was an interest in my post and want to thank everyone for their opinion.

    The Heller case was a 5-4 split. I hope everyone sees a problem with this and remembers at election time. Every judge took an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the U.S. and 4 refused to support Our Constitution. Then you have to think of all the Local, State and Federal officials that took that same oath and refused to honor it, and still refuse to do so.

    Remember, it was the Supreme Court that decided to leave your 2nd Amendment rights (regulations that infringe) to the states. (Pass the buck on "the supreme law of the land".) Then most of the @#$!% judges in WI decided that We the People of WI didn't know what we were voting for in the 1998 WI Constitutional Amendment for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The People spokeand many judges, legislators and police ignored our voices. The judges also decided that there is specialcriterion to meet before you can have a WI Constitutional challenge.

    Re: Doug Huffman, "...deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution...." Not incorporated??? The Second Amendment is a right secured by the Constitution. Do you think it is discrimination on the states part if they pick and chose what to "incorporate" from the supreme law of the land? Input from others is welcome too.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    S.E.WI wrote:
    Re: Doug Huffman, The Second Amendment is a right secured by the Constitution. Do you think it is discrimination on the states part if they pick and chose what to "incorporate" from the supreme law of the land? Input from others is welcome too.
    The language is 'Rights incorporated against the States', thus I think it is 'the courts' picking and choosing rather than the States.

    The law is an ass ridden by lawyers to work.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Free Speech: Wisconsin constitution Article I section 3.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    S.E.WI wrote:

    The Heller case was a 5-4 split. I hope everyone sees a problem with this and remembers at election time.
    Nice thought, but the reality is too many people think "Oh c'mon, they won't get anywhere banning them, and besides, I've got my shotgun and I'm happy."

    Many of those who are opposed to gun control then contrast this against the current iraq war, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping, war on drugs, abortion, etc...


    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    How many politicians speaking for - just speaking for- the uninfringed Second Amendment have ever crossed you/us on any other political hot-button issues?

    The 2A as written is too poorly focused as a political issue to be a litmus test. Heck, even Rock 'Bama! can say he is for the 2A. And his right-wing Democrat opponent me-toos.

    Conservatism is not libertarianism, it is how things were done, the things that got us to where we are. I am pleased to be a conservative.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The issue of Federal rights versus State rights is just as confused and clouded today as it was in the 1860's. At the time this country fought a war of "brothers killing brothers". The Civil War was not fought to "free the slaves" as many of us were taught. The emancipation of the slaves was a result of the Civil War but the principle reason it was fought was over the power of the Federal Government over State rights. The Federal government wanted to edict that human slavery would no longer be tolerated within the United States. The Southern states disagreed with that edict and declared that the issue of slavery was a matter that should be resolved by the individual states themselves. The disagreement became so pronounced that the Southern states seceeded fron the Union and the Civil War was the result.

    Today it seems the question of Federal rights versus States rights is not much closer to being answered than in 1865.

    In regards to the 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case. That split should not come as a suprise to anyone. It does not necessarily mean that we were very close to losing our Second amendment rights. With four liberal judges and four conservative judges and one that can go either way it is probable that unless a case transcends both the bounds of liberalism and conservatism that most decisions the current Court makes will be 5 - 4.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    How many politicians speaking for - just speaking for- the uninfringed Second Amendment have ever crossed you/us on any other political hot-button issues?

    The 2A as written is too poorly focused as a political issue to be a litmus test. Heck, even Rock 'Bama! can say he is for the 2A. And his right-wing Democrat opponent me-toos.

    Conservatism is not libertarianism, it is how things were done, the things that got us to where we are. I am pleased to be a conservative.
    Me? Dunno. Don't think I've ever heard any politician speaking for an uninfringed 2A.






    - What da hay?

    Keep Calm and Carry On

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    Don't think I've ever heard any politician speaking for an uninfringed 2A.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/73850

    Click the second interview on gun control.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Article I, §25
    Right to keep and bear arms. Section 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]


    Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
    The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.


    Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
    A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.


    Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
    Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen's desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen's home or in his or her privately-owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual's interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04-2989.


    Article I, Section 25 was clear and approved by the voters of WI. The court has dictated rather than follow the will of the people. Maybe the court won't like the results of Novembers elections and change them too. It really @#$!%'s me off that we have been told to stay home or at work if we want to defend ourselves. It seems to me that the 2 places should have been gun free zones and any location a gun toting criminal could go. People that are potential jurors have to be informed that they have the power to keep the court in check.

  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Teej wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    How many politicians speaking for - just speaking for- the uninfringed Second Amendment have ever crossed you/us on any other political hot-button issues?

    The 2A as written is too poorly focused as a political issue to be a litmus test. Heck, even Rock 'Bama! can say he is for the 2A. And his right-wing Democrat opponent me-toos.

    Conservatism is not libertarianism, it is how things were done, the things that got us to where we are. I am pleased to be a conservative.
    Me? Dunno. Don't think I've ever heard any politician speaking for an uninfringed 2A.
    I suppose that's because there were no recording devices around 1787.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •