In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
14th amendment
Rockatansky
Member Posts: 11,175
The subject has come up a few times in the past, and it has been evading my attention until reminded. So, 14th amendment's 1st clause makes sure that individual rights are not violated by the states. Why has nobody or no organization so far has challenged state laws that severely infringe on rtkba? Or have there been such challenges, if so, what were they and when and what was the outcome?
Comments
The 14th amendment states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
It does not say anything about the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are now protected from state infringement. It merely states that states can not abridge the privileges and immunities of the United states. What are our "privileges and immunities"? They are whatever the federal government says they are. The government might decide that specific rights in the first amendment deserve protection, but other rights mentioned in the first do not. They might decide that other rights enumrated in the bill of rights deserve protection, but others do not. THey might decide that certain rights that ARE NOT mentioned anywhere in the bill of rights are protected rights nonetheless.
Certainly there is a "theory" that the rights outlined in the BOR are now protected from state interference, via the 14th amendment-but it is just a theory, and a recent one. Some judges apply that theory to their decisions, some do not. Some judges think SOME rights enumerated are to be protected, but others are not. AND some judges completely disregard the bill of rights, and create new protected rights.
The federal government calls the shots on protectin rights. And since that is the case, you can be certain that they will NEVER view the rights mentioned in the second amendment are to be protected. The second amendment is about protection from the federal government- why would the federal government want to give anyone such power? They have a vested interest in making sure the second amendment means nothing.
The bill of rights was added to the constitution because many states wanted to reinforce that the federal government was to stay out of the rights business,a business that was referred to the states. The main body of the constitution already made that clear, a bill of rights was unecessary, and redundant,but the states wanted a double protection. The 14th amendment nixed that. Everything the founders were worried about, came to fruition via the 14th amendment.
So do not be fooled into believing that the 14th amendment protects the enumerated rights in the bill of rights-it merely gives the federal government the power to decide what rights we can and can not enjoy. The 14th did not guarantee rights-it took rights away.
The 14th amendment does no such thing.
The 14th amendment states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
It does not say anything about the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are now protected from state infringement.
Actually, the 14th Amendment does have something to say about protection.
The entire first paragraph of the 14th Amendment states:
"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."
The final phrase is an important phrase. The U.S. Constitution is the highest form of law. Therefore, the 14th Amendment clearly outlines that a state shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These equal protections, specifically those protected by the U.S. Constitution, are not allowed to be denied by any of the individual States within our great Union.
This means that the 14th Amendment elevates all Amendments within the U.S. Constitution above any state law that may be at odds with the U.S. Constitution.
Now, if there were a series of amendments that stated
1. "All U.S. Citizens are protected by U.S. Constitition. In the event of incarceration, the government may suspend certain rights in order to safely satisfy the terms of the incarceration. Once U.S. Citizen is legally freed of this incarceration, all right protected by the U.S. Constitution are immediately restored"
2. "The right of the people to carry a concealed weapon shall not be restricted. The government shall have no power to prevent any person from keeping and bearing arms unless said person is currently incarcerated."
Then the 14th Amendment would prevent a state from enacting a law that stated any person that was recently freed from incarceration would have a 90 day waiting period before being allowed to buy, sell or posses a firearm.
Unfortunately, our Constitution was written over 200 years ago and the general population, and specifically highly schooled but poorly educated politician and judges, have forgotten that this document was written with the intent that all U.S. Citizens would be able to understand the most important document in the history of civilized mankind. A simple statement did not require a thousand more clarifying every instance and example that may be affected by the simple statement.
Equally unfortunate is the rapidly declining belief in the "spirit" of the U.S. Constitution. The "spirit" of the 14th Amendment intended for all U.S. Citizen's to share equal protection provided by the U.S Constitution regardless of the state they call home.
However, the 14th Amendment also benefits from a very simple phrase that leaves NO QUESTION that the BOR protects all citizens within the U.S. regardless of their State residency.
To quote:
"... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Quite simply, this phrase means that the limitations of government expressed in the first 10 Amendments protect all U.S. Citizens. To be equal throughout the land, these 10 Amendments as well as any other Amendment found in the U.S. Constitution, may not be withheld from any U.S. Citizen. Therefore, the limitations of government espoused in the U.S. Constitution include those of the States as well as local city institutions.
Xerico
The 14th amendment does no such thing.
Would you like to argue with some constitutional academics on this subject?
priv?i?lege
Pronunciation:
\#712;priv-lij, #712;pri-v#601;-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
Date:
12th century
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
quote:Originally posted by salzo
The 14th amendment does no such thing.
The 14th amendment states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
It does not say anything about the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are now protected from state infringement.
Actually, the 14th Amendment does have something to say about protection.
The entire first paragraph of the 14th Amendment states:
"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."
The final phrase is an important phrase. The U.S. Constitution is the highest form of law. Therefore, the 14th Amendment clearly outlines that a state shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These equal protections, specifically those protected by the U.S. Constitution, are not allowed to be denied by any of the individual States within our great Union.
This means that the 14th Amendment elevates all Amendments within the U.S. Constitution above any state law that may be at odds with the U.S. Constitution.
Now, if there were a series of amendments that stated
1. "All U.S. Citizens are protected by U.S. Constitition. In the event of incarceration, the government may suspend certain rights in order to safely satisfy the terms of the incarceration. Once U.S. Citizen is legally freed of this incarceration, all right protected by the U.S. Constitution are immediately restored"
2. "The right of the people to carry a concealed weapon shall not be restricted. The government shall have no power to prevent any person from keeping and bearing arms unless said person is currently incarcerated."
Then the 14th Amendment would prevent a state from enacting a law that stated any person that was recently freed from incarceration would have a 90 day waiting period before being allowed to buy, sell or posses a firearm.
Unfortunately, our Constitution was written over 200 years ago and the general population, and specifically highly schooled but poorly educated politician and judges, have forgotten that this document was written with the intent that all U.S. Citizens would be able to understand the most important document in the history of civilized mankind. A simple statement did not require a thousand more clarifying every instance and example that may be affected by the simple statement.
Equally unfortunate is the rapidly declining belief in the "spirit" of the U.S. Constitution. The "spirit" of the 14th Amendment intended for all U.S. Citizen's to share equal protection provided by the U.S Constitution regardless of the state they call home.
However, the 14th Amendment also benefits from a very simple phrase that leaves NO QUESTION that the BOR protects all citizens within the U.S. regardless of their State residency.
To quote:
"... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Quite simply, this phrase means that the limitations of government expressed in the first 10 Amendments protect all U.S. Citizens. To be equal throughout the land, these 10 Amendments as well as any other Amendment found in the U.S. Constitution, may not be withheld from any U.S. Citizen. Therefore, the limitations of government espoused in the U.S. Constitution include those of the States as well as local city institutions.
Xerico
Sounds about right. [:)]
quote:Originally posted by salzo
The 14th amendment does no such thing.
Would you like to argue with some constitutional academics on this subject?
sure.
Main Entry:
priv?i?lege
Pronunciation:
\#712;priv-lij, #712;pri-v#601;-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
Date:
12th century
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
[?][?][?]
*sigh* I guess I won't hear the answers to my questions here. Maybe better luck some other place...
Bummer, dude.
...and if you are "hearing" text, you should go see a doctor.
The subject has come up a few times in the past, and it has been evading my attention until reminded. So, 14th amendment's 1st clause makes sure that individual rights are not violated by the states. Why has nobody or no organization so far has challenged state laws that severely infringe on rtkba? Or have there been such challenges, if so, what were they and when and what was the outcome?
To answer Rockatansky's question regarding the 14th and the 2nd. The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to specifically include the 2nd, and the 5th, under the umbrella of the 14th.
This does not mean that the 14th Amendment excludes the 2nd Amendment. It only means that the U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly included it. The language of the 14th clearly declares that the rights and immunities protected in the U.S. Constitution extend to all levels of government. The 14th give the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to protect these rights and immunites from actions of the States.
However, the Supreme Court has been cowardly with regards to the 2nd Amendment. The website listed above gives some very interesting historical cases regarding the 14th Amendment. The only things preventing someone from challenging these state laws are motivation and money. Like Heller, you will need to resist the temptation of "settlements" and overcome the weariness that will accompany anyone on a quest to bring a case of incorporating the 2nd Amendment with the 14th before the U.S. Supreme Court. Also like Heller, you will need deep pockets to pay for such a formidable case.
Salzo wrote:
quote:
The problem with your analysis, is that the entire chain you provide linking the BOR to the 14th amendment is based on the erroneous belief that the bill of rights is an enumeration of "privileges and immunities" that PERSONS enjoy, and are LAWS that provide equal protection to persons or citizens.
The bill of rights is no such thing. The BOR is simply a set of restrictions placed on the federal government, and declarations protecting the rights of the states.
That is very eloquent- It is wrong, but eloquent nonetheless.
To the contrary, your understanding of the reasons behind the 14th Amendment and the purpose behind amendments within the U.S. Constitution is lacking.
A very concise and annotated discussion of the 14th Amendment can be found at http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
It discusses not only the path the 14th Amendment took but the intent of the framers of the Amendment.
The framers of the 14th expressed them very clearly. The website referenced above gives a very detailed history of the events that led to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Their major fault was the lack of "public" discourse regarding the wording of the 14th Amendment. They were focused on the intent, i.e. "spirit", of the amendment rather than focusing on the ways the wording could be misinterpreted by future generations. Bingham and the other framers of the amendment often expressed the intent of the amendment verbally to the "public".
To quote some of the documentation found in the website above...
quote:
The framers of the 14th could have expressed themselves more clearly. The record below indicates what happened. They became a inner circle of debaters who developed their own understanding of the formulations they drafted without testing the language on outsiders to see how it might be misunderstood. When Bingham and the others spoke to the public, they expressed their intent for the amendments, but seldom actually presented the draft language for public comment. It was available, of course, but one had to seek it out, and in the heat of the times, most people weren't focused on how the language might be misconstrued by outsiders or later generations.
This statements of the Fourteenth were adopted for a reason. They were not without force and effect. They were intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights.
If there is any doubt as to what the framers of the Fourteenth meant by their words, here are some more of their words, taken from debates in Congress and the press during the drafting and ratification debates on the amendment.
The first 10 amendments, which affirm basic human civil rights, are also "laws" which prevent our government from acting in a manner which denies me, a U.S. Citizen, from the rights and immunities protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment simply clarified the belief that the U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme Law" throughout our nation. It is clear that all rights and immunities recognized by the U.S. Constitution are not only rights against Federal action but the 14th Amendment authorizes the Federal government, specifically Congress, to legislate protection of these same rights against actions by the States. The 14th Amendment gives specific power to the Federal Congress and Courts to gain jurisdiction over any case between the U.S. Citizen and the State involving the rights and immunities protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Included in these rights and immunities is the right to keep and bear arms. I, the U.S. Citizen, do not need the U.S. Supreme Court to tell me that a right in the U.S. Constitution supercedes a State Law that attempts to deny me that same right.
However, they, the governments of our land, do need the U.S. Supreme Court to keep them in check through force of law. We, the U.S. Citizens, must also remember that the ultimate responsibility of keeping our government in check belongs to us. The physical words on that priceless document under glass in Washington, D.C. can easily be destroyed. The "Spirit" that imbues that document with its power shall forever exist as long as a people exist, fortified with this "Spirit".
Feel free to disagree with my own interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. However, I will proudly stand up and defend my position because I have the strength and force of the historical record in which it was cast. With greater significance, I have documented evidence behind the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. This intent is equally as important as the final verbage of the actual amendment since sentence structure and word definition evolves over an extended period of time.
Luckily, I have been properly educated. I have been taught the wonderful skill of critical reading and logical progression. Based on my own research and understanding of the U.S. Constitution, no person will ever be able to convince me that the U.S. Constitution is not the Supreme "Law" of the land.
With that said, I will meekly and humbly bow to any well constructed argument which destroy my own notions and interpretations while simultaneously enlightening and expanding my understanding and interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
However, in this case, with regard to the purpose and meaning of the 14th Amendment, I will not bow.
Xerico
My understanding is that nobody yet has challenged a State which infringes on rtkba of it's residents?
Salzo wrote:
quote:
The problem with your analysis, is that the entire chain you provide linking the BOR to the 14th amendment is based on the erroneous belief that the bill of rights is an enumeration of "privileges and immunities" that PERSONS enjoy, and are LAWS that provide equal protection to persons or citizens.
The bill of rights is no such thing. The BOR is simply a set of restrictions placed on the federal government, and declarations protecting the rights of the states.
That is very eloquent- It is wrong, but eloquent nonetheless.
To the contrary, your understanding of the reasons behind the 14th Amendment and the purpose behind amendments within the U.S. Constitution is lacking.
Really? From the preamble to the bill of rights:
"The conventions of a number of the states, having at the time of their adopting this constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added..."
Sounds about right to me.
A very concise and annotated discussion of the 14th Amendment can be found at http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
I have read the Koppel piece before. The problem with reading and relying on advocate pieces is that they have a position, and will show references to support that opinion, while completely disregarding anything that goes against their advocacy. For every quote by Bingham expressing his intent to cover the bill of rights, you can find another quote by Bingham saying the intent was "something else." You can also find other "framers" who specify what "privileges and immunities" are, that are covered by the fourteenth, and they make no mention of the BOR. Of course, Koppel does not mention any of this, why would he when it would counter his position of advocacy.
To quote some of the documentation found in the website above...
quote:
The framers of the 14th could have expressed themselves more clearly. The record below indicates what happened. They became a inner circle of debaters who developed their own understanding of the formulations they drafted without testing the language on outsiders to see how it might be misunderstood. When Bingham and the others spoke to the public, they expressed their intent for the amendments, but seldom actually presented the draft language for public comment. It was available, of course, but one had to seek it out, and in the heat of the times, most people weren't focused on how the language might be misconstrued by outsiders or later generations.
This is precious. THey certainly were an "inner circle"- many of the states were not allowed into the discussion and debates on the 14th amendment. Many of the states were TOLD that if they did not ratify the amendment, then they would not be admitted into the union (a constitutional violation for sure-but that is another topic)Koppel chalks up the exclusion as an "inner circle of debaters"-that is awesome!. Koppel says that when they spoke to the public they made clear their intent- and I am sure they spoke the truth when addressing the public on the issue. I mean, they are politicians, and politicians do not say things to certain audiences, JUST to get their support, and then say the opposite to others, to get their support. BIngham, like any other politician, had the wonderful gift of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Koppels analysis that "they expressed their intent of the amendment, but seldom actually presented the draft language for public comment" is pretty hysterical. When the income tax amendment framers were hitting the streets, they told the public that it was aimed after fat cats, "none of you normal folk got anything to worry about!" But at the end of the day, the text made no mention of fat cats only, and what happend? All the talk of intent aint worth a hill of beans when it comes to the law-it is what is written that counts.
First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
Well that sounds good. Only problem is that is the way it was PRIOR to the 14th amendment. Article 6 "THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made.....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 NOTWITHSTANDING".
This is interesting. If we were to go on your position, that the ten amendments are an enumeration of INDIVIDUAL rights AND LAWS, it would certainly seem to me that after ratifying the ten amendments, these LAWS would now become the law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state notwithstanding".
Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
I would very much like to know what Koppel uses to base his opinion? Is it just because he says so, or is there some historical reference he is making to the use of terminology??
The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights.
Again, I would have to ask what Koppel bases his understanding of language on? I think a more probable explanation of "privileges and immunities, has to do with article 4 "The citizens of each state shall be entitle to all PRIVILIGES AND IMMUNITIES of citizens in the several states." The wording of the 14th is different; "No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES of citizens of the united states.." THese privileges and immunities are the same privileges and immunities that Koppel poopoos in the above quote (tort, contractual, property, etc)
T
The 14th Amendment simply clarified the belief that the U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme Law" throughout our nation.
Nope. that was clarified long before the 14th amendment. Article 6 of the constitution.
It is clear that all rights and immunities recognized by the U.S. Constitution are not only rights against Federal action but the 14th Amendment authorizes the Federal government, specifically Congress, to legislate protection of these same rights against actions by the States. The 14th Amendment gives specific power to the Federal Congress and Courts to gain jurisdiction over any case between the U.S. Citizen and the State involving the rights and immunities protected by the U.S. Constitution.
No it does not. The 14th amendment gives the US jurisdiction over cases dealing with "privileges and immunities" those same privileges and immunities specified in the constitution in article 4, section 2.
It also gives the feds the authority to prohibit the states from depriving any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law, it also says that a state can not deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One more question. If the 14th amendment binds the entire BOR against the states, because privileges and immunities are the bill of rights, then why did the founders need to include "nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law", in the 14th amendment? That comes directly from the fifth amendment. Did the founders intend on listing ALL of the amendments in the bill of rights in the 14th amendment, but only had time to do one clause of the fifth amendment? Perhaps the ink wells ran dry? That is very peculiar. COuld you explain why the framers of the 14th found this exercise in redundancy necessary? I am very curious about this.
Feel free to disagree with my own interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. However, I will proudly stand up and defend my position because I have the strength and force of the historical record in which it was cast. With greater significance, I have documented evidence behind the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. This intent is equally as important as the final verbage of the actual amendment since sentence structure and word definition evolves over an extended period of time.
Luckily, I have been properly educated. I have been taught the wonderful skill of critical reading and logical progression. Based on my own research and understanding of the U.S. Constitution, no person will ever be able to convince me that the U.S. Constitution is not the Supreme "Law" of the land.
With that said, I will meekly and humbly bow to any well constructed argument which destroy my own notions and interpretations while simultaneously enlightening and expanding my understanding and interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
However, in this case, with regard to the purpose and meaning of the 14th Amendment, I will not bow.
Xerico
Wow man, thats really heavy. Did you achieve heavyosity with that grand pronouncement?