September 30, 2009
— Gabriel Malor This is the question that the Court held off considering in Heller.
Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.
Heller finally settled the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearms. But unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment has generally (and with some exceptions back in the 1800s) not been applied to the states.
The case is McDonald v. Chicago. Fun fact: the suit was filed the same day Heller was decided.
The filings in the case so far, including the Seventh Circuit's less-than-stellar order, can be found here (scroll down).
Legal geekery below the fold. I know many conservatives do not like the incorporation doctrine. They believe that the U.S. Constitution places restraints on the national government with only a few specific restrains on state governments. The state constitutions then constrain state and local governments.
There are a few approaches to this. First, the pragmatic approach, is to admit that the incorporation doctrine is now law; it's widely accepted; and it should not just be applied willy-nilly. In other words, if the states are going to be bound by the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments, the states should be bound by the Second Amendment. The argument here is whether the first eight amendments in their entirety should be incorporated (called "total incorporation") or whether the courts should continue with their "pick-and-choose" strategy (called "selective incorporation").
Another approach directly addresses the desirability of the incorporation doctrine. Proponents of incorporation will note that most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights do not place a limitation on Congress, but make a more general limitation. For example, the Eighth Amendment says: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Nothing there to say that the Eighth Amendment only applies to the national government. (This argument fails, though, when considering the First Amendment.) It wasn't until 1833 that the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
Furthermore, there is some evidence that the creators of the Fourteenth Amendment intended that it would incorporate the first eight Amendments against the states. In other words, incorporation is not textually prohibited and it may have been the "original intent" of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Everyone Saw This Coming: When Heller came down, incorporation was the first thing I thought of. Also, if you're interested, check out the comments there for some discussion of the issue (I apologize that the spam has blown up the page width).
Last Update on This: A good write-up on the history of this issue at the Wall Street Journal. It also has some info on the other cases for which certiorari was granted. Thanks to DrewM.
Posted by: ugg boots at October 25, 2009 09:40 PM (/STCO)
Posted by: jammer at November 24, 2009 04:42 PM (opn24)
Jennifer Love Hewitt Picture Gallery
Sexy Madonna Picture Gallery
Britney Spears Picture Gallery
Posted by: ben at January 16, 2010 02:07 AM (v0Dku)
The 14th Amendment is and never was needed to "incorporate" the BOR against the individual states. The original text of the US Constitution contained language "incorporating" it entirely against the states. Simply read Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 and Section VI. You know phrases like, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." And, "This Constitution,..., 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." And, "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ...."
Plus, all the States were required to "ratify" the US Constitution. Why be required to ratify something if you're NOT being required to comply with it?
If SCOTUS rules against incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, it will have to go against all the other incorporation cases it has decided the last century or so. And, it will be prima facie evidence of Judicial Activism on the nation's highest court (oh, we already have evidence of that don't we!).
The "Incorporation Doctrine" is nothing more than legal quackery perpetrated by corrupt judges so they could rationalize their violation of both the US Constitution and their Oaths to uphold it as the "supreme law of the land."
And the Justice system has the power to punish citizens for "contempt of court"? My question is, "Just how the hell can any Freedom-loving American have anything but contempt for our courts these days."
Posted by: Paladin at January 25, 2010 09:19 AM (9rPq2)
The products which will make you more and more beauty and charming !!! Come on !!! Get these MAC items to make youself lovely and beauty .
We supply the best service and delivery time .the best quality with the best service ,LOL.
Posted by: mac cosmetics at September 14, 2010 09:37 PM (p+NSC)
Posted by: Find antiques at September 18, 2010 04:18 AM (xhvfw)
Posted by: data storage at September 19, 2010 04:28 AM (5Hxnl)
Posted by: North Carol Allergy and Immunology at September 20, 2010 04:47 AM (yzujk)
Posted by: battery service listings at September 25, 2010 04:35 AM (Yub0J)
Posted by: Find antique reproductions at September 29, 2010 06:18 AM (JwSrx)
Thank you comes to our web about Steelers jerseys. We offer the authentic, Premier, replica jerseys, our jerseys are high quality, all names, numbers and letters are stitched, free shipping, welcome to our shop to choose your favorite jersey, if have any we can do for you please feel free to contact us!
Posted by: steelersjerseys at November 07, 2010 11:00 PM (kB7lh)
Posted by: insurance oklahoma city oklahoma at June 29, 2011 05:31 AM (7PP9b)
Yifan is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipment and provides series crushing and screening equipment for customers, which includes hydraulic cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, vertical shaft impact crusher, vibrating screen and mobile crushing plant. We offer not only products with good quality and competitive price, but also top service and solution.They are includes Sand Making Production Line,Stone Production Line, Aggregate Processing Line, Sand Production Line, Gravel Production Line， Quartz Sand Production Line Building Sand Production Line and Manufactured Sand Production Line.
Posted by: Gravel Production Line at November 19, 2011 02:29 AM (UUwb8)
62 queries taking 1.194 seconds, 249 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.