WE WIN! Supreme Court decides in McDonald v Chicago

2nd Amendment incorporated under the 14th by SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision (no surprise)

Decision can be read here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

I can't wait to see what the cities and states do in response to this ruling.

Not sure I agree that "we've won". The United States won. That was the final nail in the States' coffin, the final shot fired in the Great War between the United States and the States begun in 1865. What it means is that all state law is now subject to federal law and there is no longer a distinction between the two different kinds of government. And it means that federal constitutional rights are now subject to "reasonable regulation". The word, "infringe" no longer means, "infringe". The whole idea of incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause is a way of ensuring that there is only one government, and the states don't count as sovereign entities.

It reminds me of what my criminal law and procedure professor used to say about the nature of marriage under Common Law: "You and me is one, baby, and I'm it!"

user said:

The whole idea of incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause is a way of ensuring that there is only one government, and the states don't count as sovereign entities.

Click to expand...

Because of the lack of uniformity with certain laws the Federal Government has taken control, as they should. States, Republics, what ever you wish to call them, lack the ability to come to an agreement on certain real social issues. So it falls on the Fed to sort it out now.

So it falls on the Fed to sort it out now.

Click to expand...

And the authority for this "sorting" comes from . . . ?

deanf said:

And the authority for this "sorting" comes from . . . ?

Click to expand...

The Constitution Of The United States Of America. And as far as I know every state has agreed upon the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court Of The United States has the last say in what is and is not Constitutional.

It never fails to shock me that there are people who believe in the Constitution, and the rule of law and the interpretation of said Constitution, until it conflicts with their belief of how things should be. Accept the fact that not every law, interpretation and Constitutional Amendment is going to suite you in every aspect of your life. Life is full of inconveniences--the Constitution and the interpretation of it is wrought with inconvenience for us all, but is necessary to some sort of cohesive society.

I am a proponent of State's rights and I don't see this ruling as being against them.

I see the Bill of Rights as specifically enumerated rights that SHOULD be common across the states. These were the things that formed the basis of our system and such a system would not work well without them being consistent across state borders.

The Tenth Amendment is "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." I read this as the States are prohibited from violating the BOR amendments just as the Feds are. Absent those specifically mentioned issues, the states are free to do as they wish. An example would be the wide variety of licensing, registration, or other rules and restrictions involved in firearms. Of course a STRICT reading would be that all of those things are indeed "Infringements" but we all know that just is not going to happen.

The Second Amendment is clearly a part of the Consititution, therefore it should be applicable to state and local laws just as the First, Fourth, Fifth, and others are. Does anyone believe that these pillars of our society (first five amendments) should be recognized by the Feds, yet not be acknowledged by state and local jurisdictions?

What I am irritated with is that it took the 14th amendment to "subject" states to the constitutional protects of the BOR and the amount of time for them to piecemeal those rights one by one. I am celebrating this victory in the collective "WE" as US citizens, regardless of whatever state we may find our self living in or traveling through.

911Boss said:

Does anyone believe that these pillars of our society (first five amendments) should be recognized by the Feds, yet not be acknowledged by state and local jurisdictions?

Click to expand...

I am sure that the belief that the first five Amendments should be acknowledged by the FED and the states relies on whether or not the individual believes that the ruling is in their best interest--that is usually how it plays out with people who lack the ability to or refuse to see the bigger picture.

user said:

Not sure I agree that "we've won". The United States won. That was the final nail in the States' coffin, the final shot fired in the Great War between the United States and the States begun in 1865. What it means is that all state law is now subject to federal law and there is no longer a distinction between the two different kinds of government. And it means that federal constitutional rights are now subject to "reasonable regulation". The word, "infringe" no longer means, "infringe". The whole idea of incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause is a way of ensuring that there is only one government, and the states don't count as sovereign entities.

It reminds me of what my criminal law and procedure professor used to say about the nature of marriage under Common Law: "You and me is one, baby, and I'm it!"

Click to expand...

How do you come to that conclusion? This ruling simply states that those right deemed fundamental enough to be in the bill of rights are fundamental enough that the states cannot curtail them. This seems to fall within 10th amendment grounds, too - those powers not prohibited from state control (which now includes restricting/banning the possession of arms) are federal in nature.

Sylvia Plath said:

And as far as I know every state has agreed upon the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land.

Click to expand...

You know correctly.

The United States Constitution -is- the Supreme Law of the Land. It is the leading acting legal document for federal law.

lack the ability to come to an agreement on certain real social issues. So it falls on the Fed to sort it out now.

Click to expand...

Sylvia, you've assigned a power to the federal government: sorting out of "certain real social issues."

As is commonly known, the federal government has certain limited and sharply defined powers, and no more. I'm asking you to defend this "sorting" power you believe they have. Please tell me you have something more than "The Constitution" to offer . . . .

deanf said:

Sylvia, you've assigned a power to the federal government: sorting out of "certain real social issues."

As is commonly known, the federal government has certain limited and sharply defined powers, and no more. I'm asking you to defend this "sorting" power you believe they have. Please tell me you have something more than "The Constitution" to offer . . . .

Click to expand...

What's wrong with saying that the Constitution is the end-all Law of the Land for social issues?

deanf said:

Sylvia, you've assigned a power to the federal government: sorting out of "certain real social issues."

As is commonly known, the federal government has certain limited and sharply defined powers, and no more. I'm asking you to defend this "sorting" power you believe they have. Please tell me you have something more than "The Constitution" to offer . . . .

Click to expand...

As insignificant I feel the Constitution is with regard to fundamental rights, the states agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. I did not only give you the Constitution as an example. The states, within their constitutions have acknowledge and accepted the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land. FED trumps state, this has been the case for a very long time, since, well, the writing of the Constitution.

If states are engaging in unConstitutional acts the Supreme court sorts it out. There are many social issues that fall under the Constitution that MUST be sorted out by SCOTUS because the states obviously lack the ability to do anything but limit fundamental rights and Constitutional priviledge (yes, I said it).

The states had an issue with uniformity with regard to womens rights which is why the Constitution had to be Amended. Negro Americans were not free until the FEDS stepped in, because, once again, the states failed to abolish slavery.

Chicago's ban on firearms and the D.C. ban on firearms are prime examples of state and cities failing to follow through with their end of the deal on assuring the Constitution is respected.

Sylvia Plath said:

The Constitution Of The United States Of America. And as far as I know every state has agreed upon the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court Of The United States has the last say in what is and is not Constitutional.

It never fails to shock me that there are people who believe in the Constitution, and the rule of law and the interpretation of said Constitution, until it conflicts with their belief of how things should be. Accept the fact that not every law, interpretation and Constitutional Amendment is going to suite you in every aspect of your life. Life is full of inconveniences--the Constitution and the interpretation of it is wrought with inconvenience for us all, but is necessary to some sort of cohesive society.

Click to expand...

If I learned anything from Constitutional Law, the Commerce Clause is a profound source of federal congressional authority. As McDonald reasserts, the States are going to be able to have some clout in the realm of commercial firearms transactions; however, the federal congress, sitting in a position of superiority on the issue of Interstate Commerce will have ample opportunity to expand and perhaps contract the restrictions levied on commercial firearms transactions.

Undoubtedly, this area of law will be heavily litigated - some interesting cases to come.

user said:

Not sure I agree that "we've won". The United States won. That was the final nail in the States' coffin, the final shot fired in the Great War between the United States and the States begun in 1865. What it means is that all state law is now subject to federal law and there is no longer a distinction between the two different kinds of government. And it means that federal constitutional rights are now subject to "reasonable regulation". The word, "infringe" no longer means, "infringe". The whole idea of incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause is a way of ensuring that there is only one government, and the states don't count as sovereign entities.

It reminds me of what my criminal law and procedure professor used to say about the nature of marriage under Common Law: "You and me is one, baby, and I'm it!"

Click to expand...

I would suggest taking your neo-Confederate sympathies elsewhere. The 14th amendment was properly ratified, and was in common public understanding to apply the Bill of Rights to actions by states and local governments. Following your logics, state officers can do public summary executions without recourse, and do things like preaching for the abolition of slavery from the church pulpit (a death penalty offense in South Carolina passed in 1858).

State's rights issues are NOT neo-confederate. It is simply an acknowledgment that there are some things that the Federal government does that are NOT within it's realm of duties.

There are many areas where having Federal authority is nice, but, nice does NOT mean legal!

For example: Education - Education is a state responsibility. The federal government has no legal authority to involve itself in education at all, other than to ensure everyone has access to it. It's nice to have a lot of rules & stuff, but I don't want my kids to be forced to get books like Texas mandates. One size does NOT fit all!

Agriculture - Agriculture is another area where the federal government has overstepped it's bounds. I see no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate agriculture that does not cross state lines. If you can find a part of Art I, sec 8 that I've missed, please let me know.

Health - Ditto. Health has always been the realm of the state, and now we have Obamacare.

Housing - another one. Other than ensuring that all people have an equal access to housing based on race, creed or national origin, why do we have a housing department? (Note: equal opportunity does not mean equal housing for all. If I can't afford a Bill Gates house, I don't get one just because I want one).

Energy - Under what part of Art II does the executive branch regulate energy? What portion of Art I sec 8 gives congress authority to involve itself in energy? I am sorely befuddled by this department.

Labor - Unless it involves (directly) interstate commerce, how can the federal government get involved? Under what authority of Art I, sec 8 can congress do this? Under what power? Where are those magic lines? Sure, in this economic crisis, it is nice to have a central authority, but it isn't necessarily right.

Transportation - except for the establishment of roads for carrying post, I see no authority under the Constitution to involve the federal government in transportation.

We are, all of us, living in the country that FDR gave us. He forced a lot of this through during the thirties, another one of those unsettling times. What will we give our grandkids?

oneeyeross said:

State's rights issues are NOT neo-confederate. It is simply an acknowledgment that there are some things that the Federal government does that are NOT within it's realm of duties.
.......

Click to expand...

What does any of the issues that you identified as potential 10th amendment violations have anything to do with the ability of the US Congress to deal with states violating our individual fundamental rights? Congress has the specific authority under s. 5 of the 14th amendment to enforce the 14th amendment. The authority of private actors (such as Otis McDonald, Dick Heller, Shelly Parker, Deanna Sykes, Tom G. Palmer, etc) to sue states and localities for actions under color of law to violate the civil rights of individuals guaranteed by our Bill of Rights is codified in 42USC1983, and even without it, would be enforceable via a habeas corpus petition (See In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215, 1 Ann. Cas. 55 (1902) for an example).

The guy I called a "Neo-Confederate" was lamenting the idea of the federal courts being able to strike down state and local gun contro laws. Justice Thomas may have a significant disagreement with that sentiment, and I don't understand why he thinks it's OK to leave the politically powerless gun owners in certain very anti-gun states behind with no federal legal protection.

H.r 45

Gray ,
Do you think the SCOTUS ruling will help kill any further progression of H.R. 45 “ Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009”?

jbone said:

Gray ,
Do you think the SCOTUS ruling will help kill any further progression of H.R. 45 “ Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009”?

Click to expand...

The court made all RKBA cases backwards and forwards compatible between the 2nd amendment and 14th due process clause. Blair Holt is unconstitutional for the reasons Alan Gura brought up in McDonald.

oneeyeross said:

State's rights issues are NOT neo-confederate. It is simply an acknowledgment that there are some things that the Federal government does that are NOT within it's realm of duties.

There are many areas where having Federal authority is nice, but, nice does NOT mean legal!

Click to expand...

The "Nose of the camel that has been stuck into the tents of the States" is MONEY! In every instance you mentioned, where there is no clear mandate in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be involved, they stick their nose in by threatening to withhold Federal Funds. States and all their government sub-divisions have become addicted to this money no less than someone can be addicted to crack. If the Fed's want implement a program in Education, they offer money for those that go along. Agriculture has been a nursing bottle for well over half a century. Housing has it's "Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac" with their cousin, the FHA. Healthcare, need we say more.

The bottom line is that the Federal Government takes our money and then doles it out for programs where they want to be in control.

Guns are being regulated because they are bought and sold in interstate commerce. Let's see how Montana's approach works.

Until everyone (besides those of us here) realizes that the more we allow the Feds to tax us to support their programs the less control we will have at the State and Local level.

The "fix" comes with the ballot box. Until we all say "ENOUGH" and toss some of the fools that have made Congress their "Home" on the scrap heap change will be a long way off. The time has never been better for change, or more necessary than it is now, to be made in who we send to REPRESENT US! Nothing could be nicer than to relegate the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their like, to being merely entries in a Wikipedia reference as former legislators.