• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ACCOUNTABILITY

S.E.WI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
137
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, ,
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.)



[align=left]The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations [/align]
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
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
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 shit until a court decides to incorporate them into civil rights?
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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."
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

asforme

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
839
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
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.
 

S.E.WI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
137
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, ,
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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...
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 
Top