A moment of silence for the first amendment

[Adonia]

Why do assume those states don’t have those protections in their state constitutions? I would be shocked if any state does not.

Because they don't. The list is available and as for New Jersey I used to live there - they do not have a firearms ownership provision in their Constitution. You look it up if you don't believe me.

The 14th Amendment was written to give citizenship to the newly freed slaves, it has no bearing on the other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land and every state in the union has to abide by it's provisions - period!

Look, I never said that the 14th Amendment was the vehicle to allow gay marriage or abortion, that was a court decision. Marriage, gay or otherwise is not mentioned in the Federal Constitution, therefore it is for the individual states to decide. It's the same thing with abortion, it should be a state decision.

I do not know why you are so stubborn about this, the facts are the facts and the truth is the truth. But I will leave you to your little fantasy of believing that any state in the union can somehow deny you the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, even if said rights are not mentioned in a particular state's constitution.

Free speech, the freedom to worship, firearms ownership etc. are things that no state can deny it's citizens because all have signed on to the Federal compact. End of story.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law"

"It is a telling indictment of the incorporation doctrine that nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about incorporating any part of the Bill of Rights. ...

We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights."

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | | Tenth Amendment Center

You keep saying that, but did you ever address my question regarding the wording of the 14th Amendment? Specifically what are the privileges and immunities of US citizens it references?

"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."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No mention of the Insurrection Act was made by me or the letter. Please do not derail this conversation about an affront to the 1st amendment that occurred as reported by police forces that were there doing the crowd control, Republican senators and members of this administration.

It is good to see good people stand up to abuses of that important document, the US Constitution that has helped define the great country of the United States that I grew up loving as well as being influential to other free nations around the world. I still have loved ones living in the US as well as a wife and 2 children who are US citizens. I want them to be able to wear that citizenship proudly.

Thanks for touting the US Constitution. It would be great if that touting were accompanied by an understanding of how it applies. Unfortunately, all we see you post are TDS driven comments and progressive leftist talking points aimed at undermining the US. Pushing the highly divisive, deceptive narrative of the MSM as if it is the truth is disgraceful and an affront to the American heritage. How about you refrain from advocating derailing our nation through undermining its heritage?

 

[Adonia]

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The State of Iowa for example cannot make a law that takes away your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Such a law would be found unconstitutional and the decision would be binding on every other state.

The citizen is immune from an illegal search or seizure as per the U.S. Constitution.

 

[KenH]

I do not know why you are so stubborn about this

I am not being stubborn. We have a difference of opinion, and I believe you are incorrect. I suggest you read what was said and written back when the 14th Amendment was being debated after the Civil War.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The State of Iowa for example cannot make a law that takes away your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Such a law would be found unconstitutional and the decision would be binding on every other state.

The citizen is immune from an illegal search or seizure as per the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, that's what I would expect the wording to indicate, and it seems readily interpreted that way. And further, it specifies both immunities and privileges.

I asked KH this Q once before, but did not notice any response, which made me think he doesn't have a good, plausible answer that would support his own position.

 

[KenH]

You keep saying that, but did you ever address my question regarding the wording of the 14th Amendment?

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the states in the defeated CSA could not treat the freed slaves differently than other citizens. Read what was being debated during the 14th Amendment’s adoption.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the states in the defeated CSA could not treat the freed slaves differently than other citizens. Read what was being debated during the 14th Amendment’s adoption.

I'm interested in the specific wording and what it refers to. Please list the privileges and immunities of US citizens. Where are they delineated? If you have no answer, you have no opinion, only what you feel about it, that is, emotion.

 

[Adonia]

I am not being stubborn. We have a difference of opinion, and I believe you are incorrect. I suggest you read what was said and written back when the 14th Amendment was being debated after the Civil War.

We agree on what the 14th Amendment says, that it was written so that the newly freed slaves were not to be denied their rightful American citizenship. But that has nothing to do with the other rights in the Federal Constitution which are binding on every state in the union.

Another example would be the "Miranda" ruling. That was the case where the man whose last name was Miranda had not been informed of his constitutional rights upon being arrested and the Supreme Court ruled that he should have been advised of his rights. That ruling became binding on every law enforcement officer in every state in the union and it is now standard procedure upon a persons arrest.

So I am not incorrect, every right in the Federal Constitution is to be respected by every state in the union. This is an unarguable fact and truth. Good grief, do I have to bring up the Heller decision again?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Golden Dragon there are a few factors you are not taking into consideration about the District of Columbia.

• DC is a Federal District. The current land area was ceded to the Federal government by the State of Maryland.
• As a Federal District, it is not part of any State.
• It has only had its own Mayor and city council since 1973. For a hundred years before this, DC was governed by a three-member commission appointed by Congress.
  
• Considering the above the POTUS is effectively occupies the same position for DC as other states governors do for the major cities in their jurisdictions.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Golden Dragon there are a few factors you are not taking into consideration about the District of Columbia.

• DC is a Federal District. The current land area was ceded to the Federal government by the State of Maryland.
• As a Federal District, it is not part of any State.
• It has only had its own Mayor and city council since 1973. For a hundred years before this, DC was governed by a three-member commission appointed by Congress.
  
• Considering the above the POTUS is effectively occupies the same position for DC as other states governors do for the major cities in their jurisdictions.

Yes I know that about DC. I grew up in the US for several years. Why does that matter in this case? Are you saying rights of DC citizens and media and churches are not protected by the constitution and the president can run it like an authoritarian. I can’t see how that would be.

 

[Gold Dragon]

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution

“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”
...
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago,” he writes, “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
...
We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

 

[Adonia]

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution

Those "small number" of lawbreakers are sure causing a lot of mayhem and destruction- including death. Now, if only those weak Democrat leaders of those states and cities would do their job, there would be no need for any Federal intervention.

Another thing that you and General Mattis seem to miss (or desire to ignore) is the anti - government groups like ANTIFA who are a big part of all the unrest. Bricks are being placed in strategic locations and ANTIFA is basically following military protocol in having scouts, medical personal, and infantry fighters. This is fact as evidenced by the report of the New York City police intelligence unit.

Now, as regards former Defense Seccretary Mattis and President Trump. Mr. Mattis has no authority and wasn't elected to anything - he is irrelevant.

 

[Adonia]

Yes I know that about DC. I grew up in the US for several years. Why does that matter in this case? Are you saying rights of DC citizens and media and churches are not protected by the constitution and the president can run it like an authoritarian. I can’t see how that would be.

Good grief, HE NEVER STOPPED THOSE PEOPLE FROM PROTESTING AND THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED. They were simply moved to another area so the President could go to the church. The security of the President of the United States demanded such a thing be done.

By the way, did you see the video of the Australian TV crew being attacked by BLM members in London? Just some more "peaceful protesting" going on I guess. The other videos I have seen from England have been just as disturbing, with cops kneeling (submitting) to the mob, and then cops being chased and attacked by "protestors". Nice, huh?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Good grief, HE NEVER STOPPED THOSE PEOPLE FROM PROTESTING AND THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED. They were simply moved to another area so the President could go to the church. The security of the President of the United States demanded such a thing be done.

Maybe you missed this earlier.

With the assistance of rubber bullets, pepper balls, smoke, pepper spray cannisters, beatings with shields and batons, horses charging at them, assaulting media just standing there with no audible warning. That is a great model of how to relocate protesters so the president can take a selfie.

These folks think that Constituational rights are relevant here.

James Mattis
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
There is a fundamental — a constitutional — right to protest, and I’m against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
I thought that the president came across as unsympathetic and as insensitive to the rights of people to peaceful protest.

Michael Mullen
Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country

I Cannot Remain Silent

Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.
...
We must, as citizens, address head-on the issue of police brutality and sustained injustices against the African American community. We must, as citizens, support and defend the right—indeed, the solemn obligation—to peacefully assemble and to be heard. These are not mutually exclusive pursuits.

And neither of these pursuits will be made easier or safer by an overly aggressive use of our military, active duty or National Guard.
...
I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. They will serve with skill and with compassion. They will obey lawful orders. But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief,
...
This is not the time for stunts. This is the time for leadership.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Now, as regards former Defense Seccretary Mattis and President Trump. Mr. Mattis has no authority and wasn't elected to anything - he is irrelevant.

He was only his secretary of defense for 2 years, working with Trump probably on a close to daily basis during that time. He is probably in the top 10 of people who know Trump's term in office the best.

 

[KenH]

Supreme Court

Ah. There it is. I do not accept that just because the SCOTUS rules a certain way makes them correct. We have to respect it per our system of government, but that doesn’t mean they ruled correctly.

I suggest you read the article linked below. Other than that, I don’t know what else I can do for you. Have a good day.

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | | Tenth Amendment Center

 

[KenH]

Please list the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Here ya go:

“The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship that cannot be unreasonably abridged by state laws include the right to travel from state to state; the right to vote for federal officeholders; the right to enter public lands; the right to petition Congress to redress grievances; the right to inform the national government of a violation of its laws; the right to receive protection from violence when in federal custody; the right to have free access to U.S. seaports; the right to transact business with and engage in administering the functions of the U.S. government; the right to have access to federal courts; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”

Privileges and Immunities

That’s all I know to do for you. Have a good day.

 

[Revmitchell]

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution

So what

 

[Revmitchell]

Maybe you missed this earlier.


These folks think that Constituational rights are relevant here.

James Mattis
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
There is a fundamental — a constitutional — right to protest, and I’m against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
I thought that the president came across as unsympathetic and as insensitive to the rights of people to peaceful protest.

Michael Mullen
Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country

I Cannot Remain Silent

So what