Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 206

Thread: Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,667

    Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right

    I've heard this stated multiple times on the board and I agree with it for multiple reasons, but I was wondering if there is case law to back up this statement. If there is case law can someone please post it so that I can learn from it and use it when this comment comes up in conversation.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    There IS a SCOTUS case concerning this, I don't have handy access right now. IIRC, it referred to 1st Amendment exercise.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    WOOT!

    Found it!

    JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



    aka Murdock v Pennsylvania et al


    Murdoch v Pennsylvania link at supreme.justia.com





    It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-12-2011 at 11:26 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,667
    Thanks.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    First, the issue before the Court was an ordinance issue, not a State law issue - would the Court have ruled differently if the issue were concerning a State law, who knows!

    Second, I realize that the Finding concerned First Amendment activities, but the following sentence is a sticker: "While the borough did have an interest in preserving the public peace, the Jehovah's Witnesses were soliciting "peacefully and quietly," http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_480 . Basically, the question now is, "is the CC/OC of sidearms a peaceful and quiet activity? If it is not, then the State, or city, does have the authority to levy a tax of sorts. It appears that this case has to do with "ordinance," and "solicitation." Unless you are attempting to form an angle that the carrying of sidearms is a form of solicitation, then it doesn't seem to be applicable.

    I am sure there is some person on here that might offer a rebut to my post - I may be wrong about the focus of the case.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-13-2011 at 02:23 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    First, the issue before the Court was an ordinance issue, not a State law issue - would the Court have ruled differently if the issue were concerning a State law, who knows!

    Second, I realize that the Finding concerned First Amendment activities, but the following sentence is a sticker: "While the borough did have an interest in preserving the public peace, the Jehovah's Witnesses were soliciting "peacefully and quietly," http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_480 . Basically, the question now is, "is the CC/OC of sidearms a peaceful and quiet activity? If it is not, then the State, or city, does have the authority to levy a tax of sorts. It appears that this case has to do with "ordinance," and "solicitation." Unless you are attempting to form an angle that the carrying of sidearms is a form of solicitation, then it doesn't seem to be applicable.

    I am sure there is some person on here that might offer a rebut to my post - I may be wrong about the focus of the case.

    Whether the focus was on an ordinance or not.......

    Please peruse the quote I pulled from the decision, and specifically the portion I placed in bold.

    "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."





    In this case, it appears that not only did SCOTUS rule on the narrow, they defined the broad.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Whether the focus was on an ordinance or not.......

    Please peruse the quote I pulled from the decision, and specifically the portion I placed in bold.

    "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."





    In this case, it appears that not only did SCOTUS rule on the narrow, they defined the broad.
    Ok, I see where you are going with this. So, the right to carry is an enjoyment of a right? I am serious, not trying to be argumentative. Also, are you stating that a SCOTUS Finding regarding a First Amendment right also extends to all other Amendments of the Constitution? The Second Amendment right has been granted, and affirmed by recent SCOTUS Findings, although, it appears that the right of the Second Amendment is only absolute in that States cannot ban outright, the right to keep, and bear arms.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Ok, I see where you are going with this. So, the right to carry is an enjoyment of a right? I am serious, not trying to be argumentative.
    ???? I am not "going anywhere with this," other than posting the requested cite the OP requested. And further correcting what I felt was your misinterpretation of the relevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    Also, are you stating that a SCOTUS Finding regarding a First Amendment right also extends to all other Amendments of the Constitution?
    I made no statement whatsoever about it.

    BUT, your question DOES represent a logical extension of the decision quoted. To parse it out a bit, the SCOTUS decision and the section I pulled it from did not say "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of the First Amendment Right." That would have been a narrow statement. Instead, they made a broad statement, that IMHO, should apply to ALL Rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and BoR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    The Second Amendment right has been granted, and affirmed by recent SCOTUS Findings, although, it appears that the right of the Second Amendment is only absolute in that States cannot ban outright, the right to keep, and bear arms.
    Not exactly. The Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states. The ultimate outcome has yet to be determined. The court cases so far have been of very narrow focus.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-13-2011 at 07:43 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    [snip]

    Not exactly. The Second Amendment has been incorporated against the states. The ultimate outcome has yet to be determined. The court cases so far have been of very narrow focus.
    For the OP, here lies your answer. The answer is no, the Finding offered concerning the First Amendment is not applicable to the Second Amendment. One might argue that it is implied, or that it is a natural conclusion from the wording of the Finding - but such things belong in the arena of speculation.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    For the OP, here lies your answer. The answer is no, the Finding offered concerning the First Amendment is not applicable to the Second Amendment. One might argue that it is implied, or that it is a natural conclusion from the wording of the Finding - but such things belong in the arena of speculation.
    Why not? Do you not have an understanding of what "Right" means, wrt SCOTUS statements?

    What do you base your claim upon?

    So far, you haven't 'answered.' You have attempted to declare.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-13-2011 at 07:56 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Why not? Do you not have an understanding of what "Right" means, wrt SCOTUS statements?

    What do you base your claim upon?
    As arbitrary as "Right" is, at least the application of what is a "Right" in this context, I will state that a "Right" does not exist until it is affirmed (deemed to be) by SCOTUS. Now, the meaning of "Right" is also arbitrary, because there are "Right" that are treated as though it is absolute (which it is not), and there is a contingent "Right," - wait, the former belongs under "contingent Right." I admit that the term "arbitrary" is a pretty strong term, and functions as a whim along a historical context. A "Right" is bestowed. In our case, the "Right" was generally bestowed by men who are reaching many generations from their graves a general notion of "Right."

    Describe to me what "Right" means to you, and I will tell you if I agree with you. I have offered the notion, and application of "Right."

    I just picked this contradictory description of "Right," random Google search: "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973633/posts

    I do not agree with the above definition of a "Right." Unfortunately, the "sovereignty to act without permission" is dependent on permission. One has not Right unless it is afforded to them.

    An example: There are individuals who believe that non-U.S. citizens (illegal aliens specifically) should not be afforded Rights under the Constitution. The implication is that the Rights under the Constitution are bestowed, Rights are not fundamental, Rights are not so-called "Natural Rights."
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-13-2011 at 08:06 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    As arbitrary as "Right" is, at least the application of what is a "Right" in this context, I will state that a "Right" does not exist until it is affirmed (deemed to be) by SCOTUS. Now, the meaning of "Right" is also arbitrary, because there are "Right" that are treated as though it is absolute (which it is not), and there is a contingent "Right," - wait, the former belongs under "contingent Right." I admit that the term "arbitrary" is a pretty strong term, and functions as a whim along a historical context. A "Right" is bestowed. In our case, the "Right" was generally bestowed by men who are reaching many generations from their graves a general notion of "Right."

    Describe to me what "Right" means to you, and I will tell you if I agree with you. I have offered the notion, and application of "Right."

    I just picked this contradictory description of "Right," random Google search: "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973633/posts

    I do not agree with the above definition of a "Right." Unfortunately, the "sovereignty to act without permission" is dependent on permission. One has not Right unless it is afforded to them.

    An example: There are individuals who believe that non-U.S. citizens (illegal aliens specifically) should not be afforded Rights under the Constitution. The implication is that the Rights under the Constitution are bestowed, Rights are not fundamental, Rights are not so-called "Natural Rights."
    It does not matter what "Right" means to us. What matters is that SCOTUS made a specific statement, which I quoted, which is in direct contradiction to your bloviation.


    Since you seem to desire to sidestep the specific quote I presented, here it is. Again.

    It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
    Pay especial attention to the portion I bolded. While it could be argued that they meant "granted by..." as opposed to "recognized by," I doubt it would parse out that way. Given the prior sentence made the statement about First Amendment, and also "Bill of Rights," it is not logical to assume SCOTUS didn't speak of the Bill Of Rights 'rights' when making their statement. That invalidates all the stuff you try to say.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-13-2011 at 08:24 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    It does not matter what "Right" means to us. What matters is that SCOTUS made a specific statement, which I quoted, which is in direct contradiction to your bloviation.
    Unfortunately, SCOTUS made a few statements around the one you quoted. You, and me could go on about this forever. if you believe that it 'should be' that way, then, it should be.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Unfortunately, SCOTUS made a few statements around the one you quoted.
    Oh, so if you have something to present about what SCOTUS said, then why didn't you use that, instead of the irrelevant stuff you presented?

    Do you not believe that the statement I cited is "SCOTUS speaking of the Bill of Rights?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretts92FSLady
    You, and me could go on about this forever. if you believe that it 'should be' that way, then, it should be.
    It sounds as if you believe it 'should be that a state can license a Right.' Is that accurate?
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-13-2011 at 08:28 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Oh, so if you have something to present about what SCOTUS said, then why didn't you use that, instead of the irrelevant stuff you presented?

    Do you not believe that the statement I cited is "SCOTUS speaking of the Bill of Rights?"
    SOCUTS was speaking to the BOR, as it relates to the First Amendment. Unless you can tie what SCOTUS stated in its totality to the Second Amendment, you don't even have a basis for a functioning argument - one that leads from one to the other.


    " A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

    There could be a number of assumptions, and implications derived from the quote you provided. Yes, one could argue that it is applicable to the Second Amendment, and that individuals should not be charged for exercising a right. On the other hand, one could argue that, the imposition of charge for what is a right granted as it relates to the Second Amendment is unlike the practice of solicitation of religious Dogma, but rather, the Second Amendment CC/OC being NOT a solicitation of anything, is not applicable to the Finding - is not applicable to the quote you have provided.

    Also, I should add, that this line speaks to those Rights that are incorporated, or maybe I am wrong about this. I should add, just in case, yes, the Second Amendment is incorporated. Now, that does not mean sh*t when it comes to how the Finding relates to the Second Amendment, until of course, there is some argument that such a Finding is applicable to the Second Amendment. But for now, as i stated previously, it is speculative.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-13-2011 at 08:40 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    SOCUTS was speaking to the BOR, as it relates to the First Amendment. Unless you can tie what SCOTUS stated in its totality to the Second Amendment, you don't even have a basis for a functioning argument - one that leads from one to the other.


    " A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

    There could be a number of assumptions, and implications derived from the quote you provided. Yes, one could argue that it is applicable to the Second Amendment, and that individuals should not be charged for exercising a right. On the other hand, one could argue that, the imposition of charge for what is a right granted as it relates to the Second Amendment is unlike the practice of solicitation of religious Dogma, but rather, the Second Amendment CC/OC being NOT a solicitation of anything, is not applicable to the Finding - is not applicable to the quote you have provided.

    Also, I should add, that this line speaks to those Rights that are incorporated, or maybe I am wrong about this.
    Yes, maybe you ARE wrong about this.
    I already addressed it adequately.

    Had they intended to only speak of the First Amendment, they would not have made the broad "a right granted by the Federal Constitution," after referencing the Bill of Rights.
    THat isn't a statement about not limiting solicitation, it is a statement about not licensing 'a Right granted by.....'

    There just aren't many ways to limit that statement to less than the Bill Of Rights. There isn't "need" to tie that to the specific amendments, it includes them.

    It does seem as if you are attempting to argue for what YOU desire....a limit.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-13-2011 at 08:41 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Yes, maybe you ARE wrong about this.
    I already addressed it adequately.

    Had they intended to only speak of the First Amendment, they would not have made the broad "a right granted by the Federal Constitution," after referencing the Bill of Rights.
    THat isn't a statement about not limiting solicitation, it is a statement about not licensing 'a Right granted by.....'

    There just aren't many ways to limit that statement to less than the Bill Of Rights. There isn't "need" to tie that to the specific amendments, it includes them.

    It does seem as if you are attempting to argue for what YOU desire....a limit.
    Then if that is the case we would have definitely seen something brought up about this over the years as an argument for CC/OC. the Finding has been on the books for how many decades now... My impression by the lack of any attempt at arguing from the Finding for the Second Amendment is that it is not applicable.

    Personally, I think that the wording of the Finding is disingenuous. First, SCOTUS states that a Right is granted by. Second, SCOTUS, at the time, was speaking to Rights incorporated, or am I wrong?
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-13-2011 at 08:49 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Then if that is the case we would have definitely seen something brought up about this over the years as an argument for CC/OC. ?
    No. In case you have forgotten, the Second Amendment hasn't been incorporated against the states until very recently. Claiming "if that is the case we would have definitely seen something brought up" is quite premature.....

    Give it time, incorporation only happened less than 2 years ago.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    SOCUTS was speaking to the BOR, as it relates to the First Amendment. Unless you can tie what SCOTUS stated in its totality to the Second Amendment, you don't even have a basis for a functioning argument - one that leads from one to the other.


    " A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of A right granted by the Federal Constitution."

    There could be a number of assumptions, and implications derived from the quote you provided. Yes, one could argue that it is applicable to the Second Amendment, and that individuals should not be charged for exercising a right. On the other hand, one could argue that, the imposition of charge for what is a right granted as it relates to the Second Amendment is unlike the practice of solicitation of religious Dogma, but rather, the Second Amendment CC/OC being NOT a solicitation of anything, is not applicable to the Finding - is not applicable to the quote you have provided.

    Also, I should add, that this line speaks to those Rights that are incorporated, or maybe I am wrong about this. I should add, just in case, yes, the Second Amendment is incorporated. Now, that does not mean sh*t when it comes to how the Finding relates to the Second Amendment, until of course, there is some argument that such a Finding is applicable to the Second Amendment. But for now, as i stated previously, it is speculative.
    I removed your overall bold and both bolded and capatialized the word that matters. It says "A" right, not the "THE" right. As they use the word "a" that means it applies to any right granted by the Constitution. Had they used the word "the" right then it would only apply to the specific right they were ruling on. It is only through twisting the plain reading one can come to the meaning that it doesn't apply to all Rights from the bit that is quoted.

    Now there could be more in the ruling that makes it only apply to the first amendment, but the quoted part is clear in that it applies to all rights as granted* by the Constitution. The only way for the quoted part to only apply to the first amendment is if one changes the word "a" for "the" which fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence as the word "a" is broad and "the" is specific.

    granted* No right is "granted" by the Constitution, it is affirmed.

    I will agree in that this talk is all speculative, but only because there is no court ruling listed that refers to this ruling and even if there was it could still be overturned by a later ruling. But the plain English reading of the quoted part is clear. Below will be a further breakdown of the English quote.

    "A state" - Meaning any state and not just the specific state in the court case
    "may not impose A charge" - Meaning that a state can't require ANY charges
    "for the enjoyment of A right" - "enjoyment" - the possession or exercise of a legal right (World English Dictionary). stating that it applies to ANY right
    "granted by the Federal Constitution." - stating what document is defining the right.

    So by the sentence breakdown it doesn't make sense for every use of the word "a" to be interchangable with the word "any" but then for the "a" before "right" to suddenly be very specific into which right it is referring to. And the second amendment is a right "granted" by the Federal Constitution. The only question then is the age old arguement that the second amendment is a communal right and not an individual right. If it isn't an individual right then it would be mute; but that is a different arguement and the "communal" arguement doesn't make sense w/o taking the amendment out of context and twisting into a triple pretzel.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    No. In case you have forgotten, the Second Amendment hasn't been incorporated against the states until very recently. Claiming "if that is the case we would have definitely seen something brought up" is quite premature.....

    Give it time, incorporation only happened less than 2 years ago.
    I would argue that the 14th amendment incorporated all rights against the states, but that the 14th amendment hasn't been actively and equally applied.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    I swore off breaking responses up, but there are exceptions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    I removed your overall bold and both bolded and capatialized the word that matters. It says "A" right, not the "THE" right. As they use the word "a" that means it applies to any right granted by the Constitution. Had they used the word "the" right then it would only apply to the specific right they were ruling on. It is only through twisting the plain reading one can come to the meaning that it doesn't apply to all Rights from the bit that is quoted.
    You are right, I got a bit ahead of myself. And yes, the reference to "A right," as you stated, I agree. But then we move on to this:

    Now there could be more in the ruling that makes it only apply to the first amendment, but the quoted part is clear in that it applies to all rights as granted* by the Constitution. The only way for the quoted part to only apply to the first amendment is if one changes the word "a" for "the" which fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence as the word "a" is broad and "the" is specific.

    granted* No right is "granted" by the Constitution, it is affirmed.
    Interesting that the Finding referred to Rights as "granted," not affirmed. I will let that stand as an example of what I have been stating for some time- that Rights are granted, they are bestowed, not affirmed - in application of course. The so-called Spirit is that the Rights are affirmed. But those are two separate matters.


    I will agree in that this talk is all speculative, but only because there is no court ruling listed that refers to this ruling and even if there was it could still be overturned by a later ruling. But the plain English reading of the quoted part is clear. Below will be a further breakdown of the English quote.

    "A state" - Meaning any state and not just the specific state in the court case
    "may not impose A charge" - Meaning that a state can't require ANY charges
    "for the enjoyment of A right" - "enjoyment" - the possession or exercise of a legal right (World English Dictionary). stating that it applies to ANY right
    "granted by the Federal Constitution." - stating what document is defining the right.
    The document is hardly defining the Right. The document is offering a general outline of notions. It is the Justices, the majority Finders, that are defining, and setting the parameters of the Right.

    So by the sentence breakdown it doesn't make sense for every use of the word "a" to be interchangable with the word "any" but then for the "a" before "right" to suddenly be very specific into which right it is referring to. And the second amendment is a right "granted" by the Federal Constitution. The only question then is the age old arguement that the second amendment is a communal right and not an individual right. If it isn't an individual right then it would be mute; but that is a different arguement and the "communal" arguement doesn't make sense w/o taking the amendment out of context and twisting into a triple pretzel.

    I am pretty sure Rights were intended to be for Individuals. Except one point is being missed, that the Founding Fathers, in all of their glorious, infinite knowledge - let's face it, they screwed up! - referred to the Federal Government doing things for the "common good" (I believe it was 51). So, how do we account for this contradictory message, that of Individual, and that of Communal good? It appears that the individual good is contingent on the communal good.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    I would argue that the 14th amendment incorporated all rights against the states, but that the 14th amendment hasn't been actively and equally applied.

    It is because such things must be mandated by SCOTUS through a Finding. Just another example of why the Founding Fathers thought it a safer bet that there be a strong central Government, at the expense of the States power.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Interesting that the Finding referred to Rights as "granted," not affirmed. I will let that stand as an example of what I have been stating for some time- that Rights are granted, they are bestowed, not affirmed - in application of course. The so-called Spirit is that the Rights are affirmed. But those are two separate matters.
    No, the reality is that Rights are NOT granted by the BoR. The quoted SCOTUS decision uses antiquated verbiage.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The document is hardly defining the Right. The document is offering a general outline of notions. It is the Justices, the majority Finders, that are defining, and setting the parameters of the Right.
    minutia.

    The salient point is that it appears that you now agree that the passage I cited was NOT limited in scope to only the First Amendment. The passage I cited DOES make reference to the collective of "Rights 'granted' [recognized as protected from infringement] by the Constitution [and by extension, that Bill of Rights which enumerates them]."
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-14-2011 at 01:04 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I am pretty sure Rights were intended to be for Individuals. Except one point is being missed, that the Founding Fathers, in all of their glorious, infinite knowledge - let's face it, they screwed up! - referred to the Federal Government doing things for the "common good" (I believe it was 51). So, how do we account for this contradictory message, that of Individual, and that of Communal good? It appears that the individual good is contingent on the communal good.
    Are you claiming that "common good" has "Communal good" as a synonym?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 9 123 ... 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
  •