NRA endorses Trump

[Bean Counter]

Except that it doesn't. The Bill of Rights only pertained to the federal government. That was by the Framers design. and reaffirmed in landmark court cases 50 and 100 years after our nations founding. See Barron v. Baltimore and the Cruikshank  case. It took 150 years for Incorporation to come about.

[Wenatcheejay]

The states attorneys general can work out reciprocity and recognition agreements at will. The only argument to be made in favor of federalizing CCW laws, which are currently ran by the states, is for simplicity and laziness.

Be careful what you wish for 

Agreed.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Wenatcheejay]

Bean's right on this.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Bean Counter]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments. The case began with a lawsuit filed by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, claiming that the city had deprived him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation. He alleged that the city ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most vessels. The state court found that the city had unconstitutionally deprived Barron of private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages, to be paid by the city in compensation. An appellate court then reversed this award. Barron appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1833.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.

Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. ...

[Fl0und3rz]

Except that it doesn't. The Bill of Rights only pertained to the federal government. That was by the Framers design. and reaffirmed in landmark court cases 50 and 100 years after our nations founding. See Barron v. Baltimore and the Cruikshank  case. It took 150 years for Incorporation to come about.

Except that what doesn't?

I don't know how you can say the framers intended something based on court cases decided 50-100 years after the fact, which are subsequently overruled 50 years after that.  It may be that incorporation against the states has, historically, been as a resort to the 14th Amendment. 

But that does not mean that it was necessarily the case that 1A, etc. were not intended as protections of liberty against the states, or that the same result could not be reached by appeals to the founders intent or other means.  It's just that as a matter of historical jurisprudence, courts took the 14th Amendment route.     


I don't suppose that you trying to tell me that in the interim between our nation's founding and Barron that the founders intended that citizens of the separate states had no recourse to the 1A for infringement of religious freedoms by overzealous states.  The Federalists thought a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.  As it turns out, the Federalist were wrong.


Mostly you are confusing the founders' intent with the need for judicial certainty in the context of uncertain language and unforseeable circumstances that would arise in the subsequent centuries after drafting.  The courts craft a legal justification for applying the Bill of Rights against the States, which is intended to have general and subsequent applicability (stare decisis).  That does not mean a state, until such a point where each individual liberty is specifically and judicially enforced against a state's usurpation, was intended by the founders to run roughshod over U.S. citizens constitutionally protected liberties.  That would be asinine.

As we found out in Heller, the 2A right was legally recognized as it practically always was regarded, as an individual right.  It did not mean that in the preceding 200 years that the founders ever intended it to be anything else.

You are welcome.

[Fl0und3rz]

Bean's right on this.

Don't encourage him.

[Curly]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day......
 

[huntnphool]

Bean's right on this.

Don't encourage him.

 

[Lucky1]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments. The case began with a lawsuit filed by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, claiming that the city had deprived him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation. He alleged that the city ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most vessels. The state court found that the city had unconstitutionally deprived Barron of private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages, to be paid by the city in compensation. An appellate court then reversed this award. Barron appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1833.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.

Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. ...

The last paragraph in the link kind of explains how things have changed regarding states rights since the decision.
Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. However, in spite of the Court's ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture ("the common law"). The Supreme Court's ruling in Barron prevailed in federal courts, however, until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War. Gradually since then, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, which bans states from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," as also incorporating -- or applying -- most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights against the states, including the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment. Modern constitutional law prohibits state governments from taking private property without just compensation.

[Bean Counter]

You are correct, Lucky. Or just lucky   

What Flounderz actually said was:

...But that is how our republic is set up, where the constitution empowers the federal government to set minimum protection of liberties. States are free to design greater protections.  ....

That is how we work now, since incorporation, but it is NOT how we were "set up" or designed as a federalist republic.

[Fl0und3rz]

You are correct, Lucky. Or just lucky   

What Flounderz actually said was:

...But that is how our republic is set up, where the constitution empowers the federal government to set minimum protection of liberties. States are free to design greater protections.  ....

That is how we work now, since incorporation, but it is NOT how we were "set up" or designed as a federalist republic.

Wrong again. 

However, in spite of the Court's [Barron] ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture ("the common law")

Again you confuse ever-changing federal jurisprudence with founders' intent or our constitutional structure of government.  Let me say it another way, the fact that a court would apply the 2A against a state through the legal process of incorporation says nothing about what the founders intended or how our system of government is designed. 

It is telling that States, pre-Barron, felt that the Constitution (Bill of Rights) restricted their activity against its citizens, and it was only after the Barron ruling that States had any reason to feel differently, with the ultimate result being the explicit expression of certain limitations on States in the 14th Amendment. 

In effect, and in subsequent jurisprudence, you find that the 14th Amendment essentially codifies the common understanding prior to Barron, that is, that the Bill of rights limits State and local governments from infringing citizens' individual liberties. 

Never once until modern times was the right to keep and bear arms thought to be a collective State's right.  And it was only posited to be such in modern times, post hoc, to justify states' historical infringements.  We don't need Heller to understand that the 2A is an individual right and that the founders would most certainly believe it to be so, with the 2A explicitly protecting such an individual right. 

The concept of fundamental individual liberties (like the 2A) is merely a judicial construct that courts use to distinguish what levels of judicial scrutiny they should apply to restrictions on those individual liberties.  It likely mattered not to the founders and their intents that there would arise an artificial jurisprudential distinction some 150+ years later used to determine which liberties are more protected than others.  They likely, as did the states at the time pre-and-post-Barron, presumed that the Bill of Rights also applied to the States.  What would a federally protected right be worth, if, in any State, a majority could tyrannize a politically disfavored minority? 


You've done a lot of reading but not a lot of thinking, it appears.

[Bean Counter]

*Yawn*  I'm not the one who is confused.

In effect, and in subsequent jurisprudence, you find that the 14th Amendment essentially codifies the common understanding prior to Barron, that is, that the Bill of rights limits State and local governments from infringing citizens' individual liberties. 

Sorry to see you embarrass yourself, but the aforementioned Cruikshank case was rendered after the 14th Amendment's adoption, and as it happened dealt with an issue of the 2nd Amendment.

Justice Waite's opinion read in part: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

I'd like to suggest starting back with the Federalist Papers, if you want to try internet gotcha games.

#TrumpLovesPoorlyEducated