QUESTION: What is a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?


#21

Is it really?

The states of the former Confederacy were under military occupation and denied their representation in Congress unless they ratified. Several Northern states rescinded their ratifications preventing the Secretary of State from proclaiming it part of the Constitution without reservation. The radical rump Congress then proclaimed it ratified by a voice vote.

Read the links from my post this morning if you have the time and interest. Much more detail on the process. The actions of Congress make Chuck and Nancy look like statesmen.


#22

The writers of the 14th amendment intended that it’d be applicable to the States; so yes, there is conflict.

McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller did this for the 2nd amendment. Are you saying these decisions were wrong?


#23

The 2nd Amendment does not specify a limitation to the actions of Congress, it specifically declares the Right as belonging to “The People”.

Not the Federal Government, not the States; “The People”.

John’s point is valid where applicable, he did not say the Constitution never applies below the Federal level; only that using the 14th Amendment as an excuse to dump Federal authority over the States and the People on everything the Constitution says is a bastardization of the 14th Amendment and the Constitution as a whole.

At least I think that is what he was saying :wink:


#24

Not the 14th Amendment, John Bingham wanted precisely this:

“The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress . . . with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today.”

"Hereafter the American people cannot have peace, if, as in the past, States are permitted to take away the freedom of speech, and to condemn men, as felons, to the penitentiary for teaching their fellow men that there is a hereafter, and a reward for those who learn to do well.”

“These eight articles (first 8 amendments) I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment.”

That’s the complication we live with.


#25

I’m not sure what you mean by that. You stated the obvious to say what?

JWK


#26

Please point to the words in the 14th Amendment declaring the first ten amendments are enforceable upon the states by the federal government.

In addition, what does your above comment have to do with the question asked in the OP. Is it your intention to disrupt a discussion about a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?

JWK


Our civil rights ought not be based upon the perverted desires of sexual deviants who now impinge upon the inalienable right of mankind being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


#27

See Ohio’s Right to Bear Arms.

Article I, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution provides: **“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.”**Nov 16, 2017

JWK


#28

Our federal Bill of Rights ___ our founder’s expressed purpose!

With regard to the “Bill of Rights” we find the founders expressed intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their 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 Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the state’s internal affairs. In fact, they (the First Ten Amendments) were never intended to allow the federal government, and federal judges and Justices, to use them as a means to enter the states, and impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law within every state in the Union. To think otherwise is absurd and an insult to our wise founding fathers who supported federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

JWK


#29

I just quoted the writer of the amendment stating outright that this was the intent.

The first 8 amendments; that’s what he wanted applied. Deal with it John.


#30

Magna-Yeah-That


#31

I asked you to “point to the words in the 14th Amendment declaring the first ten amendments are enforceable upon the states by the federal government.”

:roll_eyes:


#32

I guess the whole question of this thread is to cast doubt upon how binding the Constitution really is. There was a question about an Amendment and whether or not it is Constitutional. I was stating the obvious.


#33

Actually, I was trying to show there are actual rules to follow when determining what our Constitution means.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.


#34

According to the writer it’s in the 1st clause:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

“the privileges or immunities of citizens”, according to John Bingham, is the 1st 8 amendments.

John, I don’t care if you think his ideas are right or not, I think Federalism is the right way to go; but it can’t be failed to be acknowledge that the teen amendments worked to make Federalism incoherent.

That incoherence, with writers of the amendments and the Constitution being at odds, is why we have the divergence in the court, with each picking as to what is more important.

Whose “original intent” supersedes whom.


#35

The idea that quoting ONE person as in whoever penned the language that required SO MANY to embrace in order to gain ratification and in quoting this ONE PERSON claim that THEIR OPINION supercedes the actual language and EVERY OTHER PERSON’S opinion as to what the Amendment “really means” is laughable.

But I guess when you have NOTHING to hang your Statist hat on the old adage “any port in a storm” is all you have left.


#36

But that is not up to you or anyone else. It is the Supreme Court’s job to determine what is and what isn’t Constitutional.


#37

Yeah, the guy who wrote it, and who spelled out what it meant.

Keep in mind RET, John was claiming originalism denied this was the intent; I’m showing that the intent was clearly there, regardless of if others at the time had a different idea of what it was supposed to mean.

Bingham had his idea, and that was the idea the court clearly pursued going forward.

AHEM:

The day you catch me backing expansions of Federal power, is the day you admit that your neo-Wilsonian Idealism doesn’t make sense as foreign policy.

I’m not saying I support what John Bingham did, I feel the 14th should have been limited in scope to slavery as it was in its original proposal. What I’m saying is that the 14th, as written, succeeded in making the Constitution incoherent enough to wedge the court.


#38

“The guy who wrote it” in such a way as to get it ratified; not a king who writes a decree with no concern for what anyone thinks.

The authors of any part of the Constitution are no more than any other voice who ratified those words.

Original Intent means those who ratified it, not the pen holder who drafted the final wording.


#39

What I asked you, which you edited out is:

“point to the words in the 14th Amendment declaring the first ten amendments are enforceable upon the states by the federal government.”

In regard to privileges or immunities which you have brought up, the 14th Amendment declares:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

There is nothing in those words declaring the first ten amendments to the constitution are enforceable upon the states by the federal government.

In fact those words simply forbid every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law.

Additionally those words do not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

Now, once again, will you please “point to the words in the 14th Amendment declaring the first ten amendments are enforceable upon the states by the federal government.”

Additionally, if you are going to quote someone, like Bingham, provide a link to the original quote.

JWK


#40

No. The 14th amendment as written is not incoherent, especially when studying the debates of the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify the amendment.

The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:

  1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

  1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

  1. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

  1. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws.

JWK