Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Guns for All, Privileges or Immunities for None, Brian Doherty Reason.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Fourteenth Amendment background, 'privileges or immunities', 'due process', The Slaughterhouse Cases

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/0...vileges-and-im

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/0...vileges-and-im [EXCERPT]

    Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the big laugh line of the hour at Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearings in McDonald v. Chicago. That case’s outcome will decide whether the Second Amendment rights vindicated in 2008’s D.C. v. Heller apply to states and localities. Scalia amused the crowd by asking a question that has perplexed some legal scholars and gun activists both for and against McDonald lawyer Alan Gura’s general goal of applying Second Amendment protections to all levels of American government.

    To get the joke, such as it was, you first need the background about what was at stake. The Bill of Rights was originally interpreted to bind only the federal government. The framers of the 14th Amendment intended to change that, and bind the states as well in respecting Americans’ rights. This was in 1868, when recently freed slaves had their rights to work, own property, and bear arms widely abused and unprotected by state and local governments.

    The history of the 14th Amendment's passage indicates that a certain part of the amendment was meant to bear the interpretive burden of applying—“incorporating” in the legal lingo—the Bill of Rights (and other restrictions on government power) to the states. That was the Privileges or Immunities Clause: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    Since a controversial 1873 Supreme Court decision in a set of cases regarding a slaughterhouse monopoly in Louisiana, known as the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been pretty much interpreted out of existence. The Supreme Court has instead used the vaguer and less textually sensible “due process of law" provision of the same amendment to incorporate certain rights against the states. Using that tool, the Court over the past century has already incorporated most of the Bill of Rights on the states, and some unenumerated rights as well. Gura elected to reverse this trend by arguing for incorporation of the Second Amendment on privileges or immunities grounds.[/EXCERPT]

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-..._b_483908.html

    If Gun Ownership is a Right Then What Is Health Care, Chopped Liver?


    What is health care? Just one of the demons that hides in the Pandora's Box of the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and whose name we know. Another of those demons name is Buggery. We might even find Chopped Liver a right.

    Those are just two whose names we know. There are other unimagined and un-named horrors living there. Be careful of your wishes, you may get them - good and hard.

  3. #3
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Methinks the Constitutional lawyers, and SCOTUS justices are gettin wrapped around the proverbial axle on just exactly what it is the Constitution means, and all the amendments thereof.
    Health care would be another government takeover of 1/6th of the economy and put the total control of the economy at over 50%. As it is right now we're at about 47%
    The Founders stated that all Men are created equal, but that does not guarantee us an equal outcome at the end. Life is tough, and no one has any RIGHT to depend on his neighbors to bail him out of a tough time, only the hope that is also our heritage, Americans are the most giving nation on earth, and help one another, even at risk to ourselves.
    On the other hand, the RTKBA is i God given right. Rights come from the CREATOR. When we start letting Congress and POTUS think they are the granters of our rights,,it's over.
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-..._b_483908.html

    If Gun Ownership is a Right Then What Is Health Care, Chopped Liver?


    What is health care? Just one of the demons that hides in the Pandora's Box of the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and whose name we know. Another of those demons name is Buggery. We might even find Chopped Liver a right.

    Those are just two whose names we know. There are other unimagined and un-named horrors living there. Be careful of your wishes, you may get them - good and hard.
    Maybe this thread is the place for this discussion? IDK, it's already spread out among so many threads.

    How could health care possibly be a right? Where are we "Granted" the right to take other peoples money for ourselves? I honestly think the whole argument is B.S. scare tactics meant to keep conservatives from wanting the P or I clause as a vehicle for more civil rights.

    I digress to my default argument. A strengthened P or I clause should tie governments hands further, not empower them. Could you give me a scenario of how the government could abuse this? I mean, I know they can abuse anything, but I should say legally and constitutionally abuse this.

    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    If I am being addressed, I don't know, I-ANAL. They found a 'right' to abortion as complete mitigation of cold blooded murder.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    If I am being addressed, I don't know, I-ANAL. They found a 'right' to abortion as complete mitigation of cold blooded murder.
    Yes, I'm addressing you Doug. It's just that you are the one continually posting that incorporation through P or I or in some other way reviving it is a bad idea. So I want to know why. As you know I also ANAL, but I don't believe there was ever a right found for abortion, but rather a right of a woman to her own body. A finding that the state couldn't tell her what to do. That being said, I'd rather not get into that divisive and controversial issue.

    It's been implied by the courts, but never specifically tested by SCOTUS (at least from what I understand while reading the oral arguments in McDonald) that we have a right to self defense. That's a right that may be protected without further hearings if P or I was strengthened. I also believe the right is key in restricting the government in how much they can restrict the "bearing" of arms in the 2a.

    Many license requirements might be dropped that don't fall under other government powers. Such as a florist being able to start up a business without requiring a permit approved by the state and other florists. Licenses that fall under the public good or general welfare like opening up a slaughterhouse (sorry, couldn't resist) could still be covered.

    Dealers may be required to supply us with MCO's (manufacturers certificates of origin) with our vehicles instead of the state owning them and giving us a title.

    The governments powers of imminent domain may be weakened.

    I could think of quite a few other examples of "goodies" we'd get. I can't think of any powers that the government would get; legally and constitutionally anyway.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  7. #7
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-..._b_483908.html

    If Gun Ownership is a Right Then What Is Health Care, Chopped Liver?


    What is health care? Just one of the demons that hides in the Pandora's Box of the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and whose name we know. Another of those demons name is Buggery. We might even find Chopped Liver a right.

    Those are just two whose names we know. There are other unimagined and un-named horrors living there. Be careful of your wishes, you may get them - good and hard.
    Maybe this thread is the place for this discussion? IDK, it's already spread out among so many threads.

    How could health care possibly be a right? Where are we "Granted" the right to take other peoples money for ourselves? I honestly think the whole argument is B.S. scare tactics meant to keep conservatives from wanting the P or I clause as a vehicle for more civil rights.

    I digress to my default argument. A strengthened P or I clause should tie governments hands further, not empower them. Could you give me a scenario of how the government could abuse this? I mean, I know they can abuse anything, but I should say legally and constitutionally abuse this.
    Health care? well, for now you have the right to determine how best to obtain and afford it. Having it no matter what is not a right. If it was, you would have a "right" to food, clothing and shelter also. A couple years ago I got into it with a young pimple-faced Democrat congressional staffer who believed these four things were indeed rights. So I surprised him. I told him that yes, indeedy I agreed completely. SO completely, in fact, that I was going to quit my job and tell my landlord I wasn't going to pay any rent because I had a right to housing. Food? Hell, boy! I'll just walk into any random restaurant and eat my fill, and slip a copy of the 9A into the folder when the check is presented. Ditto when I need new shoes or a coat, just waltz into WalMart and grab it and go, telling the greeter "Just excersising my right to clothing, you know".

    Of course the Clearasil Kid scoffed and said "it doesn't work like that"; to which I said, why not? Of course, I said, I realized there were a few problems in that if everybody had the right to food, clothing and shelter and health care, then what kind of fool would work making clothes, building housing, growing food; and who would bother to work at being a doctor or even teaching anyone to be a doctor if they didn't have to? He then tried to describe a system wherein the government would "assign" work to people. But when I asked him if he would be willing to give up his cushy D.C. assignment of helping tell everyone how to run their lives andd be required to get up on roofs and lay shingles, his argument disintegrated into elitist argle-bargle.

    Everybody wants to rule the world.

    You have the right to say what you want and to print and publish what you want. You have the right to OWN a printing press or a microphone. You do NOT have the right to have either supplied to you at the expense of others.

    Same thing with guns. You have the right to own them, but (unless there is such a thing as Second Amendment Socialism) you have no "right" to be PROVIDED with a firearm. (Some of you will remember the nutty buddy who posted here wanting to start a fund to buy people of modest means "quality" firearms. Almost to a man we told him to either save up for a Hi-Point or get bent. ) All this stuff in the Huffington Post is a huge stinking red herring.

    As to Scalia's comment, I do not really think he would be opposed to overturning "established precedent" if it were wrong. I think he was more trying to elicit a more comprehensive argument from the plaintiff, that's all.

  8. #8
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie , you should have just told Clearasil Kid he was right and taken his lunch!
    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie, what most liberals don't understand even though they agree with it, is that people have the right to prosper without being oppressed by those who control the necessities of life. I know that just set off abunch of alarms in people's heads here, but allow me to explain. True wealth is not determined by paper money which we the peoplegive value or little pieces of paper that say you own x% of a company in a man made unnatural market, it's determined by physical assets such as land, water, food, and other resources, and those who control the majority of those resources hold the power in this nation, not the people and not the government.

    Think of it this way, if the government collapsed tomorrow and a farmer who has enough land and food to provide for himself and his family has a stock market millionaire show up at his door and offers him a million dollars for his farm, what is the farmer going to say? He's going to tell that guy to wipe his ass with his fancy toilet paper, and at that point he's wealthier than that paper millionaire. Now look at it the other way, lets say the farmer is the only farm for hundreds of miles and there are a thousand people who live in his community, he can now sell his excess crop at whatever price he wants making those people dependent on him and taking their freedom. It's called a monopoly, and those who control it control the people dependent on it.

    That's the end result of a "free market," tyrannythrough economic means. The mafia uses the same principle, for instance they owned the vast majority of the garbage disposal business in NYC and when the city did something they didn't like they threatened not to pick up the garbage. Imagine the amount of squalor that would result from a city as small as NYC with as many people that it holds if garbage pick up just stopped. It would be over flowing in a week. Point being the city government was then at the control of the mafia, not the people.

    This is what is meant by the majority of wealth being held in the hands of the few allowing them to effectively control the government and thus the people. Most liberals and conservatives agree with competition and that corporations limit competition, they simply disagree on howcompetition should be protected. Liberals believe necessities should be state runlimiting competition to desires, where as conservatives believe it should be a collection of small businesses which actively compete against one another for your business. I say most because then you have your far left and far right wackos who want to live under either state run tyranny or economic tyranny.

    When you get over the watch words and the mudslinging and actually think about what's being said and what is implied you realize that most Americans, regardless of who they affiliate themselves with agree on the same goal, they just disagree on the means to get there. Big Business is just as dangerous as Big Government and as soon as we stop allowing the agents of both to frame the argument we'll be able to move forward and find the balance, which they're both afraid of.

    As to quality firearms going to every household, why not? The Swiss government provides a rifle to every military aged male to be called to service in defense of the nation and is the perfect example of an armed polite society. Any "citizen" who would refuse to defend this nation, it's consitution, and the principles it was founded on should be stripped of their citizenship and sent about their way.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Wealth? Wealth is not finite, it is created. It works like this: The miner digs ore and sells it to the refiner. The refiner makes steel and sells it to the manufacturer. The manufacturer makes, say, sewing needles and sells them to the retailer, who sells them to the housewife who uses them to sew up the pants of her young son. It isnt the resources it is what is done with them, and the value increases with every step.

    As to that son of the housewife, eventually the miner or the manufacturer or the retailer will need help and hire the boy; who will save the money, go to college, get his head filled full of idiot liberal-schmiberal arglebargle, and become a politician and eff the whole shebang up.

    See the problem?

Posting Permissions

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