It's the Guns, Stupid

Apr 20, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Truthdig

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Comments
99,281 - 99,300 of 103,228 Comments Last updated Jun 22, 2014

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106540
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Case No 14,897

UNITED STATES v. CBUIKSHANK et al.
[1 Woods 308; 1 13 Am. Law Reg.(N.S) 630.]

Circuit Court. D. Louisiana. April Term, 1874.=

Civil Rights Bill--Indictment for Violation
--FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH Amendments to
Constitution--Right to Vote-- Injuries to Negroes--How Cognizable.

"...The first count is for a conspiracy to interfere with the right to "peaceably assemble together with each other, and with other citizens, for a peaceable and lawful purpose." This right Is guarantied in the first amendment to the constitution, which declares that "congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Does this disaffirmance of the power of congress to prevent the assembling of the people amount to an affirmative power to punish individuals for disturbing assemblies? This would be a strange inference. That is the prerogative of the states. It belongs to the preservation of the public peace and the fundamental rights of the people. The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? The 14th amendment declares that no state shall by law abridge the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States. Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from Interfering with the right to assemble, as being one of such privileges and immunities, still does it give congress power to legislate over the subject? Power to enforce the amendment is all that Is given to congress. If the amendment Is not violated, it has no power over the subject.

"The second count, which is for a conspiracy to interfere with certain citizens in their right to bear arms is open to the same criticism as the first...."

[NOTE. The order arresting the in conformity with the above opinion of Mr Justice Bradley was affirmed by the supreme court where it was carried on writ of error and certificate of division. 92 U.S. 542.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/a...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106541
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SIr Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
ANY law which is inimical to the U.S. Constitution is NULL and VOID.
The Second Amendment declares that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
WHAT do YOU NOT UNDERSTAND about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?
And anyway, YOU do NOT reside in the U.S. of A., so YOU have NO RIGHT to even be butting in on another people's rights.
Those people's rights belong to THEM, and NOT to you, you dumb, sleazy, slimy, invidious, and meddling QUEEN OF STINK!
:-))
Welcome back SBF! And hat-tip to you!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106542
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I am aware of that, the idiot I am responding to obviously is not....so educate your brethren there buddy...The point I was making that regardless of what it stated in the fourteenth ammendment the judiciary made the worst mistake of it's life....and it took another 70 years before some black Americans had the same rights as those stated in the fourteenth amendment..so you ignored the laws back then when it suited you to deny a black mans rights, and now you believe it can't be done in regards to guns...a tad naive methinks.
You are right about the 14th and the articles in the links below confirms it because 14th amendment actually did strip the Federal US Constitution's Bill of Right(1st 10 amendments of the US constitution) from the citizens of the states and left each state at its own discretion create their own States Constitutions which some states did restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and many of them did including the rights especially of the newly freed blacks(Former Slaves).

The Fourteenth Amendment: The Framing of America's Second Constitution

None of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights applied against state government. States were free to restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and many of them did &#8213; enthusiastically,” said Epps, author of Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America.“The 14th Amendment bars the states from discrimination among races, between sexes, between natives and newcomers, even between citizens and aliens. Everyone born in the United States is a citizen because of the 14th Amendment. State governments must conduct elections according to the principle of one person/one vote because of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the United States is something that we might call ‘an advanced democracy,’ because of the 14th Amendment.”

http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/

Did the 14th Amendment really incorporate the Bill of Rights?

The Truth

It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified.

http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106543
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if they've been amended for, which these clearly state they have, they can be amended against eh!
that is the purpose of a constitutional convention they called it and some states are currently calling for a constitutional convention for a balanced budget amendment which Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to hold a convention if 34 states pass resolutions calling for one.

http://onlineathens.com/general-assembly/2013...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106544
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even get me started on how the fourteenth amendment failed to protect the native Indian and their rights to be recognised as American citizens even if they left their tribes. It appears in America not all men are created equal under the law, especially if you were not white, eh!
we were at war with the Native Indians too here in US which they would be considered the same as Terrorist with todays standard.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106545
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>You are right about the 14th and the articles in the links below confirms it because 14th amendment actually did strip the Federal US Constitution's Bill of Right(1st 10 amendments of the US constitution) from the citizens of the states and left each state at its own discretion create their own States Constitutions which some states did restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and many of them did including the rights especially of the newly freed blacks(Former Slaves).
The Fourteenth Amendment: The Framing of America's Second Constitution
None of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights applied against state government. States were free to restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and many of them did &#8213; enthusiastically,” said Epps, author of Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America.“The 14th Amendment bars the states from discrimination among races, between sexes, between natives and newcomers, even between citizens and aliens. Everyone born in the United States is a citizen because of the 14th Amendment. State governments must conduct elections according to the principle of one person/one vote because of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the United States is something that we might call ‘an advanced democracy,’ because of the 14th Amendment.”
http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/
Did the 14th Amendment really incorporate the Bill of Rights?
The Truth
It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified.
http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/...
Negative. The Congressional records made it very plain that the intent was to ENFORCE the rights specified in the original Bill of Rights on all the states.

It was the u.s.s.c. that CONSPIRED against; not only the 14th amendment. But, the original Bill of Rights as well. Th last few legal decisions I've posted prove that assertion most conclusively.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106546
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even get me started on how the fourteenth amendment failed to protect the native Indian and their rights to be recognised as American citizens even if they left their tribes. It appears in America not all men are created equal under the law, especially if you were not white, eh!
American Indians are a sovereign nation unto themselves. The duty of the United States is to abide by the treaties made with the native American peoples.(Of which, every single one has been violated). Which provides further evidence that our government is TOTALLY CORRUPT, and should be summarily charged with treason. Which the 14th amendment amply provides punishment for.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106547
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>we were at war with the Native Indians too here in US which they would be considered the same as Terrorist with todays standard.
The Native Americans were defending their own land and rights. They had every right to war against a government that failed to abide by ANY of the treaties it had made. The Law of Nature/Nations makes that fact abundantly clear.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106548
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Negative. The Congressional records made it very plain that the intent was to ENFORCE the rights specified in the original Bill of Rights on all the states.
It was the u.s.s.c. that CONSPIRED against; not only the 14th amendment. But, the original Bill of Rights as well. Th last few legal decisions I've posted prove that assertion most conclusively.
it didn't do it that is why we did not have a 2nd amendment right under the US Constitution here in the US until 2010 when the SCOTUS said we did with use of the Incorporation clause of the 14th which the SCOTUS had to do because the 14th amendment striped the US Constitution Bill of Rights and why for years they said and were right to say that the 2nd amendment does not pertain to the states because of what the 14th amendment did.

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states.

See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106549
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Native Americans were defending their own land and rights. They had every right to war against a government that failed to abide by ANY of the treaties it had made. The Law of Nature/Nations makes that fact abundantly clear.
Indians sided with the British and the French too which supplied them

American Indian Wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106550
May 3, 2013
 
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't even get me started on how the fourteenth amendment failed to protect the native Indian and their rights to be recognised as American citizens even if they left their tribes. It appears in America not all men are created equal under the law, especially if you were not white, eh!
List of massacres of Indigenous Australians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacre...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106551
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>it didn't do it that is why we did not have a 2nd amendment right under the US Constitution here in the US until 2010 when the SCOTUS said we did with use of the Incorporation clause of the 14th which the SCOTUS had to do because the 14th amendment striped the US Constitution Bill of Rights and why for years they said and were right to say that the 2nd amendment does not pertain to the states because of what the 14th amendment did.
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states.
See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
NEGATIVE.

"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments,[Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."

"Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."

- Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court,(Justice Black, Douglas and Swayne in Dissent), June 23, 1947.

Justice Black goes into GREAT detail concerning the original Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. The original 10 amendments WERE intended to be applied against BOTH the state and the federal governments. This is made clear by Madison, Wilson, and quite a few other. To Wit:

Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, TO BE VALID TO >>>ALL<<< INTENTS AND PURPOSES AS PART OF THE SAID CONSTITUTION, namely:..."

More to follow...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106552
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

GunShow1 wrote:
Case No 14,897
UNITED STATES v. CBUIKSHANK et al.
[1 Woods 308; 1 13 Am. Law Reg.(N.S) 630.]
Circuit Court. D. Louisiana. April Term, 1874.=
Civil Rights Bill--Indictment for Violation
--FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH Amendments to
Constitution--Right to Vote-- Injuries to Negroes--How Cognizable.
"...The first count is for a conspiracy to interfere with the right to "peaceably assemble together with each other, and with other citizens, for a peaceable and lawful purpose." This right Is guarantied in the first amendment to the constitution, which declares that "congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Does this disaffirmance of the power of congress to prevent the assembling of the people amount to an affirmative power to punish individuals for disturbing assemblies? This would be a strange inference. That is the prerogative of the states. It belongs to the preservation of the public peace and the fundamental rights of the people. The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? The 14th amendment declares that no state shall by law abridge the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States. Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from Interfering with the right to assemble, as being one of such privileges and immunities, still does it give congress power to legislate over the subject? Power to enforce the amendment is all that Is given to congress. If the amendment Is not violated, it has no power over the subject.
"The second count, which is for a conspiracy to interfere with certain citizens in their right to bear arms is open to the same criticism as the first...."
[NOTE. The order arresting the in conformity with the above opinion of Mr Justice Bradley was affirmed by the supreme court where it was carried on writ of error and certificate of division. 92 U.S. 542.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/a...
Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106553
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

U.S. Constitution:

Article. VI.

"...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...."

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Thus it is made QUITE CLEAR the Bill of Rights applied against the states right from the start. The Usurpreme kourt committed treason almost fro the very start. And have spent decades conspiring to continue the treason.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106554
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text> Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
United States v. Cruikshank

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled on a range of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to allow Federal enforcement and prosecution of actions of the Ku Klux Klan and other secret vigilante groups in preventing blacks from voting and murdering them, Cruikshank held the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to actions of individuals: "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106555
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Indians sided with the British and the French too which supplied them
American Indian Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_...
They were entitled to turn to whatever source necessary in order to maintain their just rights.

Are you attempting to defend the reckless slaughter committed by our government? Due in large part to the fact that they failed to live up to the treaties made by them? If so, what is your defense of slavery? When the Declaration made it PLAIN:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

Was that not a hypocritical statement, considering slavery was still in effect? Using those words to gain their own freedom. While DENYING that VERY SAME RIGHT to the people that were enslaved?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106556
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text> Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
Am I correct in assuming that you agree with that tyrannical usurpation? That that was the 'correct' opinion of the court?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106557
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
U.S. Constitution:
Article. VI.
"...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...."
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Thus it is made QUITE CLEAR the Bill of Rights applied against the states right from the start. The Usurpreme kourt committed treason almost fro the very start. And have spent decades conspiring to continue the treason.
Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106558
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
United States v. Cruikshank
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled on a range of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to allow Federal enforcement and prosecution of actions of the Ku Klux Klan and other secret vigilante groups in preventing blacks from voting and murdering them, Cruikshank held the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to actions of individuals: "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
REALLY?

Case No 14,897

UNITED STATES v. CBUIKSHANK et al.
[1 Woods 308; 1 13 Am. Law Reg.(N.S) 630.]

Circuit Court. D. Louisiana. April Term, 1874.=

Civil Rights Bill--Indictment for Violation
--FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH Amendments to
Constitution--Right to Vote-- Injuries to Negroes--How Cognizable.

"[NOTE. The order arresting the in conformity with the above opinion of Mr Justice Bradley was affirmed by the supreme court where it was carried on writ of error and certificate of division. 92 U.S. 542.]"

How do you explain that foot note in the body of the case itself? That the supreme court first ruled that the decision was "in conformity". And then turned around and ruled it WASN'T?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106559
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
And the EVIDENCE , fund in the body of the CONSTITUTION ITSELF, conclusively PROVES the court was OBVIOUSLY in ERROR.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••