I sort of disagree.
If the BoR was incorporated on account of the privileges or immunities clause then Congress was not by it enumerated a Power to enact federal civil rights laws. Moreover, the due process clause of the 14th, which can be said to be in reference to the 4th to 8th Amendments (but not the 1st to 3rd, or 9th) which are laid out in the ordinary order of a legal proceeding from investigation to assessing fines or punishment has no function if incorporation of the whole BoR was performed by the privileges or immunities clause.
The States were already covered by A4:S2:C1 … there was no need for incorporation. Even the structure of the language used in the A4 clause vs that used in the 14th testifies against the modern perversion of the texts, for in capitalizing outside of the ordinary grammatical use in the P&I clause highlights that it is reference to a particular thing that preexisted it (nominally our Common Law P&I as known among all the several States that Ratified) but with the 14th these are not capitalized because no one could know what privileges or immunities the Congress MIGHT respect until they passed a statute to that effect.
The reason for enumerating a Power to Congress to enact civil rights statutes that State Actors cannot disparage (note: this does NOT include private persons or privately held entities) is because otherwise they could do nothing but wait for the unpredictable whims of people bringing suit and those subsequently going through the courts whenever their A4:S2:C1 Privileges and Immunities were trampled.
I’m pondering it.
With the 1st, it very clearly says “Congress shall make no law…”
So incorporation is necessary IMO. Of course the 2nd and 3rd, make no such distinction.
Several hard realities of the stupidity of liberalism should be hitting us right between the eyes as we gaze overseas at the events in Ukraine…
The idiocy of green new dealers making energy policy and the brilliance of our second amendment coupled with the reality that those trying to end or tamper with it are fools and tyrants are chief among them.
2 Likes
With respect to the right to bear arms I would point out that since the very existence of the States as something other than colonies was a necessary for their citizens to have Arms suitable for combat, and that they did not move against this right to nullify it before they Ratified the Constitution, they are bound by A4:S2:C1 to continue to honor that right.
State laws arrogating (restricting) the right to bear Arms should have always been considered suspect and unlawful, not just federal.
Now that I agree with. The 2nd has been incorporated since ratification because of the grammar.
What I just posted about the 2nd Amendment applies to the 1st as well.
As for the 3rd, the States have Militia, not standing armies, with one of the distinctions being that they provide their own common equipment when they muster … also militia used to tend to live nearby … therefore the 3rd, like the 10th, is a restriction on the federal for the benefit States as well as the people.
I’m still pondering, but I’m not sure it does. Different grammar.
While I could cite Barron v Baltimore to argue that it’s important to cite the correct part of the Law (and a further implication that people have a right to have bad lawyers because a Jurist that elects to provide better arguments than those given by the nitwits arguing before him becomes an advocate for one side against the other) I will stick with you point to say it’s kinda the other way around, that something about A4:S2:C1 (that it mentions the States and no where mentions the federal) is part of why there had to be a BoR applying to the federal.
You will recall arguments made against adopting the BoR made in the Federalist Papers to the effect that saying the government cannot do something it has no enumerated power to do may be latched onto by men of low character to expand the federal’s power without amendment, right?
Well, because A4:S2:C1 only mentioned the States it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect that scurrilous fellows would likewise eventually say the federal was not on the hook for our P&I … as indeed many would now want it to be free from parts of the BoR they don’t like.
So what was an argument against adopting the BoR — what faithless dishonorable men might do in the future — is also an argument for its adoption.
All that’s left is to point out that our P&I are the selfsame other rights retained by the 9th Amendment: simply there was no other body of rights common to all the several States that Ratified both. The rights spelled out in detail then have a relationship to the body of rights not called out by the 9th Amendment as either statements or these as they were well known or elaborations on them as they were known, rather than just being a disjointed group of “hey, wouldn’t it be nice if we protected some rights” type affair.
A scoped 783 chambered in .308 with a .45 sidearm would be my preference. But unfortunately I lost them both in that terrible boating accident years ago. Too bad, I miss them.
2 Likes
While I’m certain the barrel peeking out from the right side of the lower picture is your classic AK the other one I’m not recognizing. It’s magazine is kinda thin front to back looks suited to pistol ammo.
Anyone know what it is?
Top picture: Momma ready for squirrels stealing the bird seed at the other end of her neighbor’s neighbor’s pasture.
Yes, Ukraine shows the importance of armed citizens for keeping a country free. Our founders knew this and gave US the 2nd A.
Remember when Brandon was telling us we don’t need to be armed because the govt has tanks.
I do…
5 Likes
And nukes.
Yes, Had Ukraine not given up their nukes as the Clinton admin told them too, they would not be being invaded right now.
Well, sure … but Biden said the government had nukes in the same context to saying they had fighter planes and tanks to use against Americans.
1 Like
When the 2A was written, there were individual citizens who owned cannons. And even war ships.
Not saying that individuals today should own missiles and nukes, but Brandon’s argument shows how much the lib agenda feeds his ignorance.
1 Like
Brandon has put a full 4 year term of stupid into 13 actual months in office. Off to make a meme…
1 Like
