War Room Lounge v6

Status
Not open for further replies.
No such thing as automatic incorporation. Powers were granted and reserved.

Is your contention that, prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, individual states had the authority to deny citizens the right to bear arms? My belief is no. I used "automatic incorporation" to mean that the protection of the 2nd Amendment extended to protection against state government intrusion, due to the wording of the text.


It's crystal clear that the federal government was not to infringe upon the thing of the people. And powers not granted the feds were reserved to the states.

The "thing of the people"? You lost me there.

Based on the bullshit (my opinion) interpretation of the 14th, you're wrong. No different than states can outlaw communication on devices or in languages not previously known. Do you even consistency, bro? :D Or do you just hate rights? :eek:
You lost me here as well. Incorporation forbids states from denying their citizens the right to free speech. I take a pretty narrow definition of speech in this context, and I certainly don't think it applies to most of the "devices" you're probably referring to. For example, in my view, a state has the power to forbid text messaging among its citizens. The federal government does not have this power, because the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and the power to regulate text messages is not enumerated.


Then I guess you'd contend the feds have no jurisdiction over internet commerce since it's an entire age past what the Constitution referred to. Going through satellites is circumventing legal borders and airspace. Nothing is crossed. It just winds up elsewhere.

Yes. My view is that a constitutional amendment is required if the feds want to regulate the internet. I checked Articles I and II and couldn't find anything about the internet there.


By the way, sorry for the late response. For some reason I didn't see a notification.
 
i've got zero problems raising my snowflake flag and wanting my safe space on this one.

"RUN FOR YOUR LIVES YOU FUCKERS, THE MAN IS COMING!"

EVERY time I see that part of that episode I can't stop laughing.
 
Prime Rib I appreciate the manner in which you got the yellows I'm guessing you're about to have.

Thank you.
 
Is your contention that, prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, individual states had the authority to deny citizens the right to bear arms? My belief is no. I used "automatic incorporation" to mean that the protection of the 2nd Amendment extended to protection against state government intrusion, due to the wording of the text.




The "thing of the people"? You lost me there.


You lost me here as well. Incorporation forbids states from denying their citizens the right to free speech. I take a pretty narrow definition of speech in this context, and I certainly don't think it applies to most of the "devices" you're probably referring to. For example, in my view, a state has the power to forbid text messaging among its citizens. The federal government does not have this power, because the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and the power to regulate text messages is not enumerated.




Yes. My view is that a constitutional amendment is required if the feds want to regulate the internet. I checked Articles I and II and couldn't find anything about the internet there.


By the way, sorry for the late response. For some reason I didn't see a notification.

Fuck an A dude, I can barely remember what I type the next day and show up a week later? Nevermind that beyond the poor memory I tend to lose interest quickly. Alright. I'll try.

SCOTUS ruled in the 1800's that the 2nd only limited the feds. Although there was the caveat that the states couldn't completely disarm the people because that would hamper their ability to call up militias. Other than that, the right was contingent upon state Constitutions.

Yeah, I mean "right of the people", not "thing of the people". Sorry.

Incorporation applies to the entirety of the Bill of Rights, not just the 1st Amendment. There's no logic to incorporation that allows for carving out just one right. And the reality of it is we're living in an age where the states are forced to abide by the restrictions originally intended for the federal level of government. Although again, many states have similar rights enumerated in their Constitutions.

The internet is interstate and mostly commerce. If they can regulate firearms sales they sure as shit can place restrictions on internet usage.
 
SCOTUS ruled in the 1800's that the 2nd only limited the feds.

You're right. Cruickshank v. United States (1875) found:

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.

...

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...

There's no logic to incorporation that allows for carving out just one right.
The logic would be: if the amendment explicitly restricts Congress's authority, then the amendment shouldn't be incorporated. If the amendment is phrased in a general manner (as in the 2nd Amendment), then it would apply to the federal government and the state governments. That said, I'm not done an in-depth study of the views of the founders on this question. I hope to find the time to look at the cases cited in Cruickshank.

The internet is interstate and mostly commerce. If they can regulate firearms sales they sure as shit can place restrictions on internet usage.

"Interstate commerce" referred to the physical movement of goods and currency across state lines. There was no internet when the clause was written. It should never be applied to a scenario the founders could never have envisioned.



 
The logic would be: if the amendment explicitly restricts Congress's authority, then the amendment shouldn't be incorporated. If the amendment is phrased in a general manner (as in the 2nd Amendment), then it would apply to the federal government and the state governments. That said, I'm not done an in-depth study of the views of the founders on this question. I hope to find the time to look at the cases cited in Cruickshank.

Look, there's no way I'm defending incorporation via the 14th. However it's pretty damn clear the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government, regardless of specific wording. It's either all incorporated or it isn't.


"Interstate commerce" referred to the physical movement of goods and currency across state lines. There was no internet when the clause was written. It should never be applied to a scenario the founders could never have envisioned.

Look, there's no way I'm defending how interstate commerce is applied. But commerce is commerce and money is travelling across state lines no different than sending a money order and getting goods from the Sears catalog. The belief that new technology trumps legal principle is baffling to me. And it needs to be applied because that's the law, like it or not. If We the People don't like it we can change the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top