Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

interestin g items (2) in today's CATO Daily Dispatch

Discussion in 'Legal' started by alan, Jul 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
  2. Nathaniel Firethorn

    Nathaniel Firethorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    Exit 8A, Peoples' Republic of Corzinistan
    Wow.

    Not sure I like the idea of Cato picking a fight with the NRA, but perhaps they need this kind of a wake-up call.

    - pdmoderator
     
  3. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    I would debate you long and hard about who's picking the fight here (hint: it ain't Cato!).

    Sigh.
     
  4. Nathaniel Firethorn

    Nathaniel Firethorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    Exit 8A, Peoples' Republic of Corzinistan
    Details?

    - pdmoderator
     
  5. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Well let's start with the two lawsuits:

    1) Levy and other Cato-connected people hire Stephen Halbrook to do preliminary legal research for a DC case. At this point, before anything is filed, NRA-connected people across the nation brag about how Cato and NRA are jointly going to go head-to-head with the DC gun ban.

    2) Levy and company file a dead-simple RKBA-based lawsuit in DC (Cato is not *directly* involved). No extraneous issues, no need for even a discovery process, Ashcroft is NOT a defendant, etc. They happen to draw a reasonable judge. While that doesn't mean they'll necessarily win at the trial court level, it DOES mean there won't be any extra farting around, time delays and the like so win or lose round one, they can start up the appeals ladder quickly.

    3) Less than two weeks later, NRA files "the behemoth" suit - it's based on a whole pile of side-issues in addition to plain ol' RKBA, it names everybody in sight as defendants (including Ashcroft, guaranteeing that DOJ can't do a friendly Amicus!).

    4) The "behemoth suit" draws a really rotten judge...basically, a worst-case scenario.

    5) NRA then files a motion before the "bad judge" asking that the cases be merged. Levy and company promptly freak out; first, they claim that Halbrook is trying to improperly hijack their case and "reconnect" with Levy and company despite their having parted ways with Halbrook over tactical disagreements - in effect, they claim that Halbrook has a conflict of interest going on stemming from his previous involvement. Second, Levy claims that he never intended to sue Ashcroft and that Ashcroft is an improper defendant. And third, Levy has no interest in all the weird equal protection and due process "side issues" raised by NRA/Halbrook.

    Understand that a successful case merger would have put the new combined case before the BAD judge, not the good one Levy drew!

    6) The "bad judge" turns out to be somewhat less bad than expected, and denies Halbrook's attempt at a merger.

    7) Apparantly, in a last-ditch effort to finally kill the Levy case, NRA gets Orrin Hatch to propose a legislative end to the DC gun ban, making both the Levy and Halbrook cases moot.

    -----------

    So ask me again who's the "assailant" here?

    My theory: this isn't Halbrook acting on his own. It can't be. It's somebody further up the chain in NRA HQ pulling strings. And no, I'm not prepared to make guesses as to who - whoever it is is scared of an RBKA ruling out of the USSC.
     
  6. Jeeper

    Jeeper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,062
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    As usual, Jim nailed it right on the head!

    The only thing I can add is that I really like the Levy case. I also really like the gun ban being overturned in DC. I really think that the best place for a "TRUE" second amendment case to come from would be under the complete gun ban of DC. This puts the true "right" unequivicably in question. I really would like to see that kind of case go all the way up as opposed to something like Silveria, Nordyke, or Emerson(yes I know cert was already denied).
     
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    I agree that the case Levy built was (and remains) a killer platform from which to take the RKBA to the Supremes.

    Nordyke isn't half bad though, because it's about something "not very scary" at all - gun shows. Esp. in California, where there's no private sales allowed except through FFLs with the full background check.

    As to Silveira, while it IS about something "scary", on the bright side the plaintiffs are all 100% upstanding citizens (as opposed to Levy's example of a "random crack dealer") and the cert brief filed was...VERY good. Astonishingly good, really.

    See, attacking in the 9th Circuit is the one thing everybody says is stupid. HOWEVER, there's a very interesting reason to go ahead and do so: of all the "anti-RKBA-precident" circuits, so far as I'm aware the 9th is the only one that cited *directly* to US vs. Cruikshank (1876) in the 1992 9th Circuit case of Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van De Camp. Which one, hasn't been overturned, two, was cited by the later 9th Circuit Hickman case and three, Fresno Rifle was cited in State AG Lockyer's briefing/position paper on the 2nd Amendment written just last year.

    In contrast, the Morton Grove case doesn't cite to Cruikshank. It cites to Presser, an 1886 case that cites Cruikshank. In Morton Grove, the grabbers avoided citing to Cruikshank because they realized it was butt-ugly, probably the single most racist USSC decision in history.

    But in California and the 9th Circuit, the grabbers didn't figure that out. They've therefore woven Cruikshank deep into the fabric of their arguments (that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states) and hence left a real monster of a vulnerability in there.

    I told Gary Gorski over and over to exploit that opporunity and in the latest cert brief, he did.
     
  8. Jeeper

    Jeeper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,062
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    That is a very good point that relying on a case that is just pure evil would be a hard thing to do. I also think that a way around both Presser and Cruikshank is the way that the 5th circuit did it in Emerson. They used the reasoning that the series of cases from the 50s and 60's that started the incorparation trend werent out yet. I think this is good bet for that issue.

    As to your other points. I think that Nordyke might be the best bet over Silveria. The refusal of the 9th to have an En Banc hearing and the opinions that the other panel was wrong should be very persuasive when combined with Emerson. Neither case is really bad. You are very correct that the participants are at least all honest citizens. That is why I really didn't want the USSC to hear Emerson. I think it would be harder to get behind a person the press would show as a wife beater and crazy. I see that the cert petition was filed for Silveria on 7/3/03. Very interesting!
     
  9. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Well first, Presser doesn't really say ANYTHING about the 2AM's applicability to the states. It just says "see Cruikshank".

    So you don't "find a way around" Presser, you just divert the issue back to Cruikshank. And then you don't "find a way around" Cruikshank, you confront the damned thing head on and destroy it. Cruikshank was such an absolutely bad decision, it should NOT be treated as "binding precident" today and there's absolutely no excuse for the 9th Circuit and Bill Lockyer to do exactly that.

    As to Nordyke: it's a decent guess the 9th will hear Nordyke En Banc. If they do, and they've got any brains at all, they'll realize that SOME sort of "individual right" is going to come out, but they'll have a chance to try and construct a very "weak individual right" before the issue gets to the USSC, possibly giving the USSC an excuse not to rule on Silveira because Nordyke was already settled in the 9th.

    That'd be an interesting ruling...because ANY "individual right to arms" ruling in the 9th or USSC would probably spell the death-knell of the California (and perhaps Hawaii) discretionary CCW systems.
     
  10. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    Jeeper:

    As to Emerson being a "wife beater", while Emerson is seemingly less than admirable, he was busted recently for "stalking" as well as driving w/o a license, see last issue of Gun Week, I though that this "wifebeater" business was at best, an unsubstantiated allegation. Is there something here that I've missed?

    Jim March and Jeeper:

    Correct me if I'm wrong or thick headed, but it seems that The Second Amendment, as with the rest of BOR is a admonition to government, federal as well as state, via the 14th Amendment regarding things it was not suposed to do, places it was not suppoosed to go. Yes, no or perhaps?
     
  11. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Alan, regarding your last paragraph:

    Yes, that's exactly what was supposed to have happened. But three major things complicated the situation.

    * First, the USSC between 1872 and 1905ish completely gutted the 14th Amendment. In a whole series of cases, they either ignored it (as with Cruikshank) or just flat overturned it (Slaughterhouse, Plessy vs. Fergusen, Williams vs. Mississippi, MANY more).

    * The 14th Amendment "Privileges And Immunities Clause" was among the key bits destroyed. It was intended to apply both the Bill Of Rights and the "traditional rights of free Englishmen" to the states, by borrowing from the language of the Dred Scott decision of 1856. See also: http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html

    During the 20th Century, the USSC clearly realized that the states had to be contrained from violating the BoR, and that the 14th Amendment was the key to this. But they used a weird way of getting there, via the due process clause. To this day, the P&I clause remains "damaged goods" and the entire subject of states honoring the BoR is "skewed".

    * Finally, there's the Miller decision. The judge that penned it was a borderline lunatic and horrific racist. There is at least one year in which there's no picture of all the USSC justices, because this guy would have been lined up next to a Jew and he would not be so photographed :rolleyes:. His level of scholarship is known to be poor, his role in history is just disturbing, and the decision itself is a mess.

    --------

    In short: this is easily the most screwed-up area of law in US legal history.
     
  12. Boats

    Boats member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,705
    Location:
    Oregon
    Oh? The commerce clause cases are a bigger mess in my opinion. The feds couldn't even reach the states on guns were it not for the line of cases that culminated in the New Deal commerce clause decisions that took most of last century to even begin chipping away at. These decisions gave rise to the hyper-regulatory federal superstate we all so love today. Our guns are ensnared in the commerce clause net nearly as badly as they are by non-decisions on the 2A, and may even be ensnared still if we ever get a favorable incorporation 2A decision from the SCOTUS.

    CATO is worried about nothing IMO. There is not much of a chance that Hatch's bill will escape the Senate, let alone be signed by Bush coming into an election.
     
  13. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    Pro-Gun Groups Split on Tactics
    Cato Institute, NRA Quarrel Over Challenges to D.C. Law




    By Arthur Santana
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, July 21, 2003; Page B05


    Months before Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation to repeal the District's 27-year-old handgun ban, two gun rights groups were trying to get the law struck down in U.S. District Court.

    But instead of working together, the Cato Institute and the National Rifle Association have filed separate lawsuits against the gun ban and have disagreed with each other's legal tactics.

    Last week's proposal by Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has once again put them at odds, with the Cato Institute accusing the senator and NRA officials of conspiring to spoil its lawsuit.

    In February, Bob Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, a D.C.-based libertarian think tank, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six D.C. residents, challenging the city's handgun ban on grounds that it violated their Second Amendment rights. It is now pending before U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

    A month later, attorney Stephen Halbrook followed with a suit on behalf of the National Rifle Association, representing five other D.C. residents. In addition to the right to bear arms, the NRA suit claimed, among other things, that the D.C. law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. That case is pending before U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton.

    Levy was not happy with Halbrook, who had worked as a researcher for the Cato fellow, for filing a competing suit. Then, on Tuesday, Hatch introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act, which would repeal the District's ban on handguns, end strict registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms and lift prohibitions on the possession or carrying of weapons at homes and workplaces.

    The Cato Institute issued a press release accusing the NRA of conspiring with Hatch to undermine Levy's suit. Although it said Cato was "not itself involved in the litigation," it supports its scholars' defense of the Second Amendment.

    "From the start, the NRA has tried to stop our suit from going forward," said Levy. "Essentially, the NRA is saying, 'If we can't control the litigation, there won't be any litigation.' "

    Halbrook dismissed that argument.

    "I really can't agree with that," Halbrook said. "The . . . bill is a legislative remedy, and if they could solve the problem legislatively, then that's the way to go.

    "But the bottom line is to make it where law-abiding citizens can have guns to protect themselves, and we're for the quickest way to do that."

    Last year, the local courts rejected arguments by dozens of D.C. criminal defendants -- bolstered by statements by U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft that gun bans violate the Second Amendment -- that their gun possession charges should be dismissed. Ashcroft's pronouncements were prompted by an opinion by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which Levy said also prompted him to file his lawsuit.

    But Levy said he was surprised when the NRA filed its suit and Halbrook asked the court to consolidate the suits. Levy objected, and Judge Sullivan denied the motion two weeks ago. The two lawyers were familiar with each other; Levy had earlier hired Halbrook to conduct pretrial research for him. But they disagreed on trial strategies, and when Halbrook took the NRA's case, Levy called Halbrook's actions "unethical" and sought to have him recuse himself.

    "It saddens me," Halbrook said. "I regret they said those things and felt that way."

    Adding to the disharmony, Halbrook named Ashcroft as a defendant in the NRA lawsuit, seeking to challenge what the organization sees as his inconsistency in refusing to argue that the D.C. law is unconstitutional.

    "We would find it interesting if the AG would take a position on the merits," Halbrook said. "Because it would seem to be an inconsistency to say that a person has a right to keep and bear arms, but not in D.C."

    D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) is also named as a defendant, Halbrook said. Department of Justice and city attorneys filed motions to dismiss last month.

    Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the Fairfax-based National Rifle Association, called Levy's allegation "misguided."

    Meanwhile, one gun control group said the infighting among gun rights groups is unusual.

    "The Second Amendment has proven to be a double-edged sword for the NRA," said Matt Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group. "You have Ashcroft defending the D.C. gun ban. You have the Cato Institute attacking the NRA. You have NRA suing Ashcroft."

    Meanwhile, one of the NRA plaintiffs, Absalom Jordan, 62, of Southeast Washington, said he opposed the D.C. gun ban when it was being considered and continues to be an opponent of it.

    "I believe I have a right to protect myself," said Jordan, who is retired. "I was the victim of an attempted robbery about five years ago in my apartment. They pulled a gun on me, and if I had a gun, I would have defended myself. I live in a community where there are serious crime and drug problems."

    As for Hatch's legislation, Jordan said, "I'm so happy that someone is willing to stand up and defend the rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20215-2003Jul20.html?nav=hptoc_m
     
  14. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    It's interesting that the Washington Post picked this up (with help from VPC). I wonder if other newspapers, TV will if only to relish the apparent discord between the pro gun forces.

    Anyway, it does appear that the only reason NRA has for doing what they have done is to serve their own purposes- not to protect my RKBA. As I see it they don't want a 2nd Amendment case to go to the SCOTUS regardless of what the outcome is- because whether the Stupremes find for or against an individual right the NRA's funding would be negatively impacted. Why send them money if SCOTUS says we have no right? Why send them money if we do?

    If this is the case then my NRA membership is going to lapse- it would be nice if they would directly address this and explain their rationale.
     
  15. Oracle

    Oracle Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Austell, GA
    2dogs,

    The NRA won't, because the NRA's primary goal has become to promote themselves, not the rights of gun owners, and to raise as much money as they can. I don't see how anyone can think of the NRA as an actual promoter of gun rights when it fights gun owners as much as or more than it helps them (by this idiotic stunt, and by the numerous times it's supported more anti-gun legislation, fought against concealed carry laws, etc.). The NRA's become just like most of our political institutions in their attitude of "give us your money and your support, while we continue to work against you". Good to hear that you're not falling for it anymore either.
     
  16. Shooter 2.5

    Shooter 2.5 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    476
    Orrin Hatch is not a member of the NRA that I know of. He's with the Cititizen's Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms.

    So you have someone from The Citizen's Committee and the NRA trying to stop the Supreme Court from ruling on Second Amendment principles.

    It sounds like the Committe and the NRA took a poll of the current U.S. Supreme Court Justices and realized if a Second Amendment case goes before this court we're going to lose.

    From the press release, the Cato Institute isn't part of this lawsuit. It's from a member of their organization. Fron the press release, even they aren't backing the lawsuit.

    Why is a ruling so important now instead of waiting until we can get at least one more conservative on the court?
     
  17. Nathaniel Firethorn

    Nathaniel Firethorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    Exit 8A, Peoples' Republic of Corzinistan
    Because we might not get one before it's too late to do any good.

    BTW, Jim, thanks for the details.

    - pdmoderator
     
  18. Shooter 2.5

    Shooter 2.5 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    476
    According to whose timetable?

    Your's?

    clintoon confirmed the last two Supreme Court Justices?

    Are you that eager to lose 5-4?
     
  19. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Quoting:

    What?

    Uhh...I don't think so! I mean, a brief connection of some sort is inevitable as they're on the same side, but certainly not any kind of "management interest" on Hatch's part in CCRKBA.

    Further, I know for a fact CCRKBA isn't impressed by the attempted takeover via merger of the Levy case.

    Now, does CCRKBA and company support Hatch's attempt to end the DC gun ban? I don't know. They possibly do, on reasoning the same as mine: while hurting the Levy case would be bad, the benefits to ending the ban, including immediately dropping the violent crime rates in DC and providing a killer "test case", are so enormous that it's worth doing regardless. Sorry, Mr. Levy. CCRKBA didn't prod Hatch into this.

    See, that's the crazy part here: sorting out all the motivations is impossible. Hatch himself probably isn't trying to "torpedo the Levy case". But he wasn't prodded into filing this bill by CCRKBA, it was indeed NRA. And the timing is...at a minimum, peculiar. The actions in the filing of the 2nd suit and attempted merger are beyond "peculiar", we're way into "disgusting" there.
     
  20. Shooter 2.5

    Shooter 2.5 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    476
    I read an article that stated he was on the "Advisory Board" of CCRKBA. Maybe someone who's a member can fill me in.

    It's interesting that others have already said that he was prodded into the bill by the NRA. Is that what Hatch or the NRA said?
     
  21. Shooter 2.5

    Shooter 2.5 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    476
    A portion of a fund raising letter from the Citizen's Committee For The Right To Keep and Bear Arms:


    "Will you join with me and U. S. Senators Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Don Nickles and other distinguished Americans as a member of the National Advisory Council of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? "
     
  22. Graystar

    Graystar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Cruikshank is a great decision. It's binding today precedent today because it IS such a good decision.

    What's wrong with it?
     
  23. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Graystar: you're joking, right? Or you've got your cases mixed up?

    Cruikshank was the 1876 USSC decision saying that there was nothing the Feds could do about state-sponsored civil rights violations, including violations fo the 1st Amendment (freedom of association), 2nd Amendment and 15th Amendment (voting).

    But that doesn't even begin to describe what happened here.

    Blacks in Louisiana tried to vote under the then-new 15th Amendment. Local cops combined with the Klan to launch three days of riot, arson and murder. The first thing the cops did was to disarm the blacks - the murders, assaults and rapes began immediately. On day three, the rioters burned the courthouse and Federal troops finally restored order and arrested the ringleaders including Cruikshank.

    They were prosecuted on charges of committing civil rights violations under Federal law.

    The USSC said that the Feds couldn't do anything about ANY of these state-sponsored civil right violations.

    Civil rights abuses by states ran unchecked until the 1960s. Cruikshank was the single biggest of the "pro-KKK" decisions of that period.

    ------------

    Today, if the state of, say, California tried to prevent all members of a given minority from voting, or sponsored criminal attacks on people with no lawful reason, Federal troops/police would be sent in by the swarm. With good reason. But while most of Cruikshank is now considered toast, it's still being relied on for the proposition that states can disarm their citizenry, apparantly even if the purpose for doing is distinctly criminal in nature?!.

    Oh no. HELL no. If this last remnant of Cruikshank upheld by the USSC, it would be solid grounds for immediate civil war.
     
  24. Graystar

    Graystar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    "State sponsored" is not the same as "the state." The charges were brought against the men, not the state of Louisiana.

    Cruikshank correctly clarified the relationship between the federal government and state government. When one person violates the rights of another person, that is the domain of the state. When a state violates the rights of a person, that is the domain of the federal government. In Cruikshank, the federal government was asked to do something that it did not have the power to do. That is why the court discharged the defendants.

    If, after a trial at the state level, the victims felt that the state was a party to their rights being violated then it would be appropriate to take the issue to the Supreme Court. But that never happened. You can't try a state issue in a federal court. The trial has to happen at the state level first. That is what state sovereignty is all about. You just can't throw state sovereignty out the window when it becomes inconvenient.

    The 14th Amendment does not apply to the Bill of Rights. Those rights are not privilege. Nor are they immunities. A bill of rights is not law. it merely states what already is. The US Constitution cannot confer upon us what we already had. Nor does it need to. As Cruikshank stated, the protection of our rights was always in the domain of the states. The states are already under obligation to protect our rights. It is when they fail to do so that the federal government steps in.
     
  25. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Graystar, you don't know know what you're talking about re: the 14th, and the idea that states can violate people's civil rights without Federal oversight is simply disgusting and has no place in modern law. Thank God.

    Your view would allow the institutionalized state racism of 1872 - 1963 to continue unchecked. Thank GOD you're dead wrong.

    Now, let's talk about the 14th Amendment P&I clause:

    The Dred Scott case (1856) specifically limited black civil rights in all aspects. It wasn't just a pro-slavery decision; it stated that the US had always been a racist society from Colonial times, incorporated numerous racist laws right around and through the time of the founding of the current Constitution (citing disgusting examples from the 1790s) and hence racism would be forever allowed in the US.

    The decision was so broad in scope that the "racism is OK" parts survived slavery itself. During the period 1865 - 1868, the Southern states rapidly passed the infamous "black codes" to preserve racism in a post-slavery South. They were supported in this by Dred Scott.

    Here's a key piece of the Dred Scott decision:

    --------------
    For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them [ed: blacks] from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/92/542.html
    --------------

    Note that the Dred Scott case uses the term "privileges and immunities" (of United States Citizenship, as explained elsewhere in the case) 33 times, and exhaustively defines it. In the paragraph above, it's clear that the P&I includes the entire BoR, including the 2nd Amendment, plus stuff that can best be described as "the traditional rights of free Englishmen" such as the right to travel without passport.

    Now here's the opening paragraph of the 14th of 1868:

    --------------
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
    --------------

    John Bingham, the 14A's primary author, was dead clear about what he was up to: he was using the language of Dred Scott ("privileges and immunities of US citizenship") to specifically overturn the Dred Scott decision. Only a constitutional amendment CAN overturn a USSC decision legislatively.

    So that's exactly what they did.

    The problem is, the USSC didn't *like* being overturned, so they pretended not to know what their own language in Dred Scott meant. In Cruikshank, they flat ignored the 14th altogether(!) and in Slaughterhouse, Presser, Plessy vs. Fergusen and a pile of others they deliberately gutted it.

    Well Graystar, I don't want to live in a racist society. I don't want to live in a society where states are allowed to be tyrannies. I believe the 14th Amendment was THE most significant improvement over the original Constitution/BoR ever created, I support it, and I think it's finally time that it be restored to it's original form.

    Silveira will be a good opportunity, because it finally tells the truth about Cruikshank.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page