2 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Military I suppose… militia…

I suppose you’re thinking of the Supreme Court, but then who punished them if they contradict the constitution? Congress I suppose, so then you might say congress is the arbiter, but then who punished them when they contradict the constitution?  … we could go round and round on this forever, but I like to think it is philosophically and linguistically possible for everyone who takes the time to read the laws to agree on what it says, even if they don’t agree on what they would change it to if they had their personal druthers

I have taken the time to read almost every state constitution.  I think they all have their own "mini” fourth amendment and speech clause

We’ve debated the meaning for over 200 years. If SCOTUS is effectively eliminated or rendered irrelevant then the US essentially ceases to exist in its intended and original form. At that point it becomes something other than the society/republic put together by the founding fathers way back when. 

1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

14th amendment…equal protection applies to states.  
 

On the subject of ads, choose a state and I will tell you the laws… go on

The 14th amendment says the federal government is in charge of protecting your rights, not the states.  It’s the most significant change to the Constitution.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

We’ve debated the meaning for over 200 years. If SCOTUS is effectively eliminated or rendered irrelevant then the US essentially ceases to exist in its intended and original form. At that point it becomes something other than the society/republic put together by the founding fathers way back when. 

SCOTUS is not irrelevant… it decides cases and is most important when it comes to determining facts in a case.  Also, lawmakers are not perfect and it is conceivable that a law could have been made in error or present itself in certain cases as being a bit ambiguous as to meaning.  But there’s certain laws where the words are so clear and for them to rule against it is just obviously a violation

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The 14th amendment says the federal government is in charge of protecting your rights, not the states.  It’s the most significant change to the Constitution.

No state can deprive you of life liberty or property without due process of law, and everyone gets equal protection of law…that’s all that was added… they didn’t add anything like "no state shall infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms "

5 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

No state can deprive you of life liberty or property without due process of law, and everyone gets equal protection of law…that’s all that was added… they didn’t add anything like "no state shall infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms "

You have to think about the context of the amendment. It’s one of the Reconstruction amendments - which means it was after the Civil War.  The 13th amendment banned slavery.  But the Republicans wanted to go a little bit further than that and so they passed the 14th amendment - which protected black people from southern states imposing all kinds of restrictive laws after slavery.  It’s basically an anti-states rights amendment.

I haven’t read the decision, but I’m guessing the way Clarence Thomas use the 14th amendment in today’s Supreme Court decision is to say that people have the right to defend themselves and the federal government has to protect that right.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

You have to think about the context of the amendment. It’s one of the Reconstruction amendments - which means it was after the Civil War.  The 13th amendment banned slavery.  But the Republicans wanted to go a little bit farther than that and so they passed the 14th amendment - which protected black people from southern states imposing all kinds of restrictive laws after slavery.  It’s basically an anti-states rights amendment.

Alaska was added to the union in 1959, well after the civil war and 14th amendment 

https://ltgov.alaska.gov/information/alaskas-constitution/

 

If the 14th amendment did what you said, it would be redundant for the constitution of Alaska to have all of the rights you see there

If the 14th amendment prohibition to the states of depriving life liberty or property without due process of law did more than just say the states must follow the law, then the very similar 5th amendment from 1791-1865 would have made all of the other amendments to the constitution unnecessary.  The right to speech and arms and what not could have been encapsulated in that one single fifth amendment 

When it says the government can’t take without due process of law, it means literally that and only that

Quote

U.S. Supreme Court protects police from 'Miranda' lawsuits

WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday shielded police from the risk of paying money damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before obtaining statements later used against them in court, siding with a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.

The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of deputy sheriff Carlos Vega, who had appealed a lower court decision reviving a lawsuit by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh who accused the officer of violating his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through so-called Miranda warnings. Tekoh was acquitted at trial.

The court's six conservatives were in the majority in the ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, with its three liberal members dissenting.

The rights at issue were delineated in the Supreme Court's a landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling that, under the Fifth Amendment, police among other things must tell criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during interrogations before any statements they make may be used in a criminal trial.

Vega was backed by President Joe Biden's administration in the appeal.

At issue was whether the use in court of statements collected from suspects who have not been given a Miranda warning may give rise to a civil lawsuit against the investigating officer under a federal law that lets people sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights.

Vega in 2014 investigated a claim by a Los Angeles hospital patient that Tekoh, who worked as an attendant at the facility, had touched her inappropriately while she was incapacitated on a hospital bed. Vega said Tekoh voluntarily offered a written confession even though he was not under arrest or in custody.

Tekoh disputes Vega's version of events and contends that he was interrogated by Vega, who coerced a false confession.

Tekoh was arrested and charged in state court with sexual assault. His incriminating statement was admitted as evidence during the trial, but a jury acquitted him. Tekoh then sued Vega in federal court, accusing the officer of violating his Fifth Amendment rights by extracting an incriminating statement without Miranda warnings, leading it to be used against him in a criminal prosecution.

The jury reached a verdict in favor of Vega, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 ordered a new trial on the officer's liability.

The 9th Circuit found that using a statement taken without a Miranda warning against a defendant in a criminal trial violates the Fifth Amendment, giving rise to a claim for monetary damages against the officer who obtains the statement.

Appealing to the Supreme Court, Vega's attorneys said in a legal filing that the 9th Circuit's decision threatened to "saddle police departments nationwide with extraordinary burdens in connection with lawful and appropriate investigative work." Vega's lawyers added that "virtually any police interaction with a criminal suspect" might lead to liability for officers.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-protects-police-miranda-lawsuits-2022-06-23/

 

 

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I haven’t read the decision, but I’m guessing the way Clarence Thomas use the 14th amendment in today’s Supreme Court decision is to say that people have the right to defend themselves and the federal government has to protect that right.

 

Clarence Thomas believes the 14th Amendment shouldn't exist.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

 

Clarence Thomas believes the 14th Amendment shouldn't exist.

Apparently he uses it in his decision today knocking down New York’s gun law.  That’s what I heard on NPR anyway.   

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Apparently he uses it in his decision today knocking down New York’s gun law.  That’s what I heard on NPR anyway.   

 

Oh...how convenient 

When it suits him, incorporation is ok...

This fu**in' guy...

 

 

Whiny ishlibs today:

 

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

I guess I like the protection of a right to self defense but I still think the 2nd only explicitly restricts the federal government, not the states, so I disagree there…

They should have said perhaps the 14th amendment and the common law provision of the New York constitution 

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Paragraph 2 spells it out. I agree that the 14th Amendment applies as well.

1 minute ago, PoconoDon said:

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Paragraph 2 spells it out. I agree that the 14th Amendment applies as well.

It doesn’t, I’ve addressed this in this thread

5 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

It doesn’t, I’ve addressed this in this thread

You are always dead wrong though. I blame your handicap.

There’s multiple SCOTUS cases that strengthened the supremacy of federal laws over state laws.  Start with McCulloch versus Maryland

25 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

It doesn’t, I’ve addressed this in this thread

Of course it does. You've misread it if you think the State Constitutions or laws are exempt. When it says any thing in the constitution or laws of a state to the contrary notwithstanding, it means those things don't survive (withstand) the supremacy of the US Constitution, laws, and treaties. It seems straightforward. 

 

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.

Just now, PoconoDon said:

 

 

You're wasting your time.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

You're wasting your time.

I know. I'm bored this afternoon.

6 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Of course it does. You've misread it if you think the State Constitutions or laws are exempt. When it says any thing in the constitution or laws of a state to the contrary notwithstanding, it means those things don't survive (withstand) the supremacy of the US Constitution, laws, and treaties. It seems straightforward. 

 

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.

Can you explain these words, professor:

which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

5 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Can you explain these words, professor:

which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

Laws which the Constitution does not prohibit. Easy Peasy.

i have said it before, bath salts. 

Just now, PoconoDon said:

Laws which the Constitution does not prohibit. Easy Peasy.

So the constitution prohibits certain laws… which is basically what I said.  But it’s not as if the Federal Government starts with infinite power and the constitution merely carved out limited exceptions to the infinite power.  The reverse is true.  The federal government started with zero power, and the constitution added only the powers therein enumerated