• 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.

"2d Amend. does not apply to states" -Morgan, J.; but police demand for SSN is unlawful

S

SDguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
119
Location
, South Dakota, USA
imported post

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?
 
M

murphy2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
143
Location
, ,
imported post

This judge is obviously an idiot. The amendments where addedin the constitution because the "states feared" a federal/central government. The amendments only apply to the states as a protection from the feds. Heis a graduate of public school, I'm sure.
 
O

OldManMontgomery

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
31
Location
Hastings, Nebraska; the Heartland!
imported post

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.
 
The Donkey

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

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.
Click to expand...


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 tohow 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.
 
Bookman

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
imported post

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 :cuss: do it with any of the others. Either ALL of them apply to the states or NONE of them do.
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

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?
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

cREbralFIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
378
Location
, ,
imported post

Bookman wrote:
If the 2A doesn't apply to the states, then who the :cuss: DOES it apply to? This so-called judge needs to be checked for Alzheimer's
Click to expand...


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.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

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.
Click to expand...
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

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

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.
 
C

cREbralFIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
378
Location
, ,
imported post

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sonora Rebel

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

Common sense apparently does not apply to this Judge. As WRITTEN... the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE!
 
The Donkey

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
Common sense apparently does not apply to this Judge. As WRITTEN... the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE!
Click to expand...

If you want it interpreted that way, you want to electPresidents who will appoint --and Senators who will confirm --more judges like Justices Black and Douglas.

I wonder whether any of the current lothave that much brass anymore:question:
 
Sonora Rebel

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Common sense apparently does not apply to this Judge. As WRITTEN... the Constitution applies to the PEOPLE!
Click to expand...

If you want it interpreted that way, you want to electPresidents who will appoint --and Senators who will confirm --more judges like Justices Black and Douglas.

I wonder whether any of the current lothave that much brass anymore:question:
Click to expand...
You are out of your cotton pickin' mind!
 
The Donkey

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

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!
Click to expand...

If you want it interpreted that way, you want to electPresidents who will appoint --and Senators who will confirm --more judges like Justices Black and Douglas.

I wonder whether any of the current lothave that much brass anymore:question:
Click to expand...
You are out of your cotton pickin' mind!
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that means you support selective incorporation. . . :?
 
The Donkey

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
No... it means you're a MOONBAT!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top