Is Obama's Supreme Court Pick A Trojan Horse For Gun Control?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court can't change The Constitution.

Sure they can. The Liberal ones tell us there are terms in it that aren't there. Based on their decisions, those things are applied as if they are thought none would be able to show them in the text of the Constitution.

And this would be an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution, either.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which theSupreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's rightto possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit inHeller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of theFirearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , norPresser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Show me where The Constitution says The Supreme Court has the power to interpret tHe Constitution.

It doesn't. The Supreme Court, wait for it, gave themselves the ability to do something the Constitution doesn't specifically give them the authority to do. Certain Justices seems to think there are words in the Constitution that simply aren't there.

Yet another example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

Incorporation Doctrine can be found here in the Constitution:

'I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does
not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.'

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

In McDonald the Supreme Court reaffirmed Incorporation Doctrine as settled and accepted, when it applied the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, making its jurisprudence binding on both.

And as we can see Scalia himself concurred with the majority, agreeing that Incorporation Doctrine is “established” and that indeed the guarantees in the Bill of Rights place limits not only on the Federal government, but on state and local governments as well.

Therefore, your opposition to Incorporation Doctrine places you at odds with your beloved Scaila, unless it's your position that Scalia was 'wrong.'

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Disir]

I don't think a lot of people understand that. There are those who bank on people not understanding it--like the OP.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Supreme Court can't change The Constitution.

No one said it could.

Rulings made by the Supreme Court don't 'change' the Constitution, invalidating laws repugnant to the Constitution doesn't 'change' the Constitution.

Indeed, many measures struck down by the courts are known to be un-Constitutional in light of the case law, yet many partisan rightists enact those measures anyway to provoke a court fight perceived to garner conservatives some perceived political gain.

The interpretive authority of the courts is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – consistent with the understanding and intent of the Founding Generation, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution, where to determine what the Constitution means or to invalidate laws inconsistent with Constitutional case law in no way 'changes' the Constitution.

Gun ownership isn't repugnant to The Constitution, which is why The Supreme Court can't touch it.

 

[Conservative65]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

Incorporation Doctrine can be found here in the Constitution:

'I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does
not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.'

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

In McDonald the Supreme Court reaffirmed Incorporation Doctrine as settled and accepted, when it applied the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, making its jurisprudence binding on both.

And as we can see Scalia himself concurred with the majority, agreeing that Incorporation Doctrine is “established” and that indeed the guarantees in the Bill of Rights place limits not only on the Federal government, but on state and local governments as well.

Therefore, your opposition to Incorporation Doctrine places you at odds with your beloved Scaila, unless it's your position that Scalia was 'wrong.'

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If it's in there, show me those specific words. Until then, all you've done is claim an interpretation is the same as the exact words.

 

[Disir]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

Incorporation Doctrine can be found here in the Constitution:

'I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does
not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.'

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

In McDonald the Supreme Court reaffirmed Incorporation Doctrine as settled and accepted, when it applied the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, making its jurisprudence binding on both.

And as we can see Scalia himself concurred with the majority, agreeing that Incorporation Doctrine is “established” and that indeed the guarantees in the Bill of Rights place limits not only on the Federal government, but on state and local governments as well.

Therefore, your opposition to Incorporation Doctrine places you at odds with your beloved Scaila, unless it's your position that Scalia was 'wrong.'

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If it's in there, show me those specific words. Until then, all you've done is claim an interpretation is the same as the exact words.

The only thing necessary is to show where the power or authority is derived from.

 

[Conservative65]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

Incorporation Doctrine can be found here in the Constitution:

'I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does
not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.'

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

In McDonald the Supreme Court reaffirmed Incorporation Doctrine as settled and accepted, when it applied the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, making its jurisprudence binding on both.

And as we can see Scalia himself concurred with the majority, agreeing that Incorporation Doctrine is “established” and that indeed the guarantees in the Bill of Rights place limits not only on the Federal government, but on state and local governments as well.

Therefore, your opposition to Incorporation Doctrine places you at odds with your beloved Scaila, unless it's your position that Scalia was 'wrong.'

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If it's in there, show me those specific words. Until then, all you've done is claim an interpretation is the same as the exact words.

The only thing necessary is to show where the power or authority is derived from.

The thing that is necessary when you claim the Constitution SAYS something is to show the words where it says it.

 

[Disir]

Incorporation Doctrine
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

Incorporation Doctrine can be found here in the Constitution:

'I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does
not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.'

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

In McDonald the Supreme Court reaffirmed Incorporation Doctrine as settled and accepted, when it applied the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, making its jurisprudence binding on both.

And as we can see Scalia himself concurred with the majority, agreeing that Incorporation Doctrine is “established” and that indeed the guarantees in the Bill of Rights place limits not only on the Federal government, but on state and local governments as well.

Therefore, your opposition to Incorporation Doctrine places you at odds with your beloved Scaila, unless it's your position that Scalia was 'wrong.'

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If it's in there, show me those specific words. Until then, all you've done is claim an interpretation is the same as the exact words.

The only thing necessary is to show where the power or authority is derived from.

The thing that is necessary when you claim the Constitution SAYS something is to show the words where it says it.

Where do you get the power to do A, B, C and D? That was provided twice. For us, you and I, our rights come via the incorporation doctrine through the Due Process Clause: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Located in the fourteenth amendment.

 

[Conservative65]

Show me the term "Incorporation Doctrine" as within the power/ability of the Supreme Court as written in the Constitution as their power. What the Supreme Court does is makes things up as they go along then tells us that what they do is in the Constitution. In the real world, that's called justification not authority.

It's the same type of thing done by legislators at all levels of government. They make rules that apply to the rest of us and exempt themselves from the ruled. Funny how those making the rules create things where the rules don't apply to them.

Incorporation Doctrine can be found here in the Constitution:

'I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does
not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.'

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

In McDonald the Supreme Court reaffirmed Incorporation Doctrine as settled and accepted, when it applied the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, making its jurisprudence binding on both.

And as we can see Scalia himself concurred with the majority, agreeing that Incorporation Doctrine is “established” and that indeed the guarantees in the Bill of Rights place limits not only on the Federal government, but on state and local governments as well.

Therefore, your opposition to Incorporation Doctrine places you at odds with your beloved Scaila, unless it's your position that Scalia was 'wrong.'

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If it's in there, show me those specific words. Until then, all you've done is claim an interpretation is the same as the exact words.

The only thing necessary is to show where the power or authority is derived from.

The thing that is necessary when you claim the Constitution SAYS something is to show the words where it says it.

Where do you get the power to do A, B, C and D? That was provided twice. For us, you and me, our rights come via the incorporation doctrine through the Due Process Clause: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Located in the fourteenth amendment.

Are you claiming the Constitution grants rights?

 

[Disir]

Incorporation Doctrine can be found here in the Constitution:

'I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S.
266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does
not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.'

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

In McDonald the Supreme Court reaffirmed Incorporation Doctrine as settled and accepted, when it applied the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions, making its jurisprudence binding on both.

And as we can see Scalia himself concurred with the majority, agreeing that Incorporation Doctrine is “established” and that indeed the guarantees in the Bill of Rights place limits not only on the Federal government, but on state and local governments as well.

Therefore, your opposition to Incorporation Doctrine places you at odds with your beloved Scaila, unless it's your position that Scalia was 'wrong.'

Last, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If it's in there, show me those specific words. Until then, all you've done is claim an interpretation is the same as the exact words.

The only thing necessary is to show where the power or authority is derived from.

The thing that is necessary when you claim the Constitution SAYS something is to show the words where it says it.

Where do you get the power to do A, B, C and D? That was provided twice. For us, you and me, our rights come via the incorporation doctrine through the Due Process Clause: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Located in the fourteenth amendment.

Are you claiming the Constitution grants rights?

The Constitution is simply a contract between the federal government and the states. The Bill of Rights is another matter.

 

[Conservative65]

If it's in there, show me those specific words. Until then, all you've done is claim an interpretation is the same as the exact words.

The only thing necessary is to show where the power or authority is derived from.

The thing that is necessary when you claim the Constitution SAYS something is to show the words where it says it.

Where do you get the power to do A, B, C and D? That was provided twice. For us, you and me, our rights come via the incorporation doctrine through the Due Process Clause: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Located in the fourteenth amendment.

Are you claiming the Constitution grants rights?

The Constitution is simply a contract between the federal government and the states. The Bill of Rights is another matter.

The Bill of Rights is part of the, wait for it, CONSTITUTION.

 

[Disir]

The only thing necessary is to show where the power or authority is derived from.

The thing that is necessary when you claim the Constitution SAYS something is to show the words where it says it.

Where do you get the power to do A, B, C and D? That was provided twice. For us, you and me, our rights come via the incorporation doctrine through the Due Process Clause: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Located in the fourteenth amendment.

Are you claiming the Constitution grants rights?

The Constitution is simply a contract between the federal government and the states. The Bill of Rights is another matter.

The Bill of Rights is part of the, wait for it, CONSTITUTION.

I realize that is how many people say it. .But when you look at it from a legal standpoint it is considered a different document. The BOR was simply federal limitations on the STATES.

 

[Conservative65]

The thing that is necessary when you claim the Constitution SAYS something is to show the words where it says it.

Where do you get the power to do A, B, C and D? That was provided twice. For us, you and me, our rights come via the incorporation doctrine through the Due Process Clause: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Located in the fourteenth amendment.

Are you claiming the Constitution grants rights?

The Constitution is simply a contract between the federal government and the states. The Bill of Rights is another matter.

The Bill of Rights is part of the, wait for it, CONSTITUTION.

I realize that is how many people say it. .But when you look at it from a legal standpoint it is considered a different document. The BOR was simply federal limitations on the STATES.

The BOR was limits on the FEDERAL government.

When I look at it as the Constitution, it's part of the same document.

 

[Disir]

Where do you get the power to do A, B, C and D? That was provided twice. For us, you and me, our rights come via the incorporation doctrine through the Due Process Clause: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Located in the fourteenth amendment.

Are you claiming the Constitution grants rights?

The Constitution is simply a contract between the federal government and the states. The Bill of Rights is another matter.

The Bill of Rights is part of the, wait for it, CONSTITUTION.

I realize that is how many people say it. .But when you look at it from a legal standpoint it is considered a different document. The BOR was simply federal limitations on the STATES.

The BOR was limits on the FEDERAL government.

When I look at it as the Constitution, it's part of the same document.

Um...I just said that. Do you need some coffee?

 

[Conservative65]

Are you claiming the Constitution grants rights?

The Constitution is simply a contract between the federal government and the states. The Bill of Rights is another matter.

The Bill of Rights is part of the, wait for it, CONSTITUTION.

I realize that is how many people say it. .But when you look at it from a legal standpoint it is considered a different document. The BOR was simply federal limitations on the STATES.

The BOR was limits on the FEDERAL government.

When I look at it as the Constitution, it's part of the same document.

Um...I just said that. Do you need some coffee?

You said it was limits on the States. The Bill of Rights was limits on the federal government.

 

[Disir]

The Constitution is simply a contract between the federal government and the states. The Bill of Rights is another matter.

The Bill of Rights is part of the, wait for it, CONSTITUTION.

I realize that is how many people say it. .But when you look at it from a legal standpoint it is considered a different document. The BOR was simply federal limitations on the STATES.

The BOR was limits on the FEDERAL government.

When I look at it as the Constitution, it's part of the same document.

Um...I just said that. Do you need some coffee?

You said it was limits on the States. The Bill of Rights was limits on the federal government.

Federal limitations on the States. The Incorporation Doctrine moves those same limitations on the states to the individual.

 

[Disir]

I'll get more coffee.

 

[Conservative65]

The Bill of Rights is part of the, wait for it, CONSTITUTION.

I realize that is how many people say it. .But when you look at it from a legal standpoint it is considered a different document. The BOR was simply federal limitations on the STATES.

The BOR was limits on the FEDERAL government.

When I look at it as the Constitution, it's part of the same document.

Um...I just said that. Do you need some coffee?

You said it was limits on the States. The Bill of Rights was limits on the federal government.

Federal limitations on the States. The Incorporation Doctrine moves those same limitations on the states to the individual.

Federal limitations on the federal government retard.

 

[Conservative65]

I'll get more coffee.

You should pull your head out of your ass first. You'll drown if you don't. Wait, that's not such a bad idea.