14
   

McDonald v. Chicago

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:09 am
Perhaps Thomas deleted his post. At all events, this is the reply to that post which i had prepared:

I am not prepared to be suppositious in that matter. My comment about the second amendment was to the effect it is not necessarily a matter for incorporation, and how the states saw that in amending or re-writing their constitutions is not relevant to that comment. I was expressing my personal opinion that it is not a matter for incorporation. With regard to that opinion, see Joe's most recent post.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:11 am
@Setanta,
I did delete my post. I had written it before you edited the post I was responding to, and your edit made my response unnecessary.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:13 am
Good . . . i couldn't see why you were persisting.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:19 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I disagree. I said that Brandon's understanding is shallow because it appears to me that he doesn't understand the concept of incorporation. Nothing you have written refers to his understanding of the concept of incorporation.

As far as regards the concept of incorporation with regard to the second amendment, see Joe's comment. And, as i have continually pointed out, it is up to this Court to decide whether or not this applies.

I didn't take offense. I'm aware of the concept of incorporation and the 14th amendment, although I admit that I don't understand all the details. I believe that the Bill of Rights is inherently good, and hope that it can be applied in its entirety as universally as possible.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:58 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
Wouldn't a decision against the City of Chicago erode
the independent police powers of all American cities and states?
Yes; it will. Their powers will be reduced, aggrandizing
and elevating the freedom of the creators of the Republic: the citizens,
or if u prefer to see it more precisely, the heirs of those citizens
who wrote and ratified the US Constitution and its first ten amendments.

As citizens, we need to be aware
that the relationship between the citizens and their employee, government is one of ADVERSITY.

Personal freedom of the individual citizen is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the domestic power of government.
The more we curtail and strangle the jurisdiction of government,
the FREEER we will be.

It behooves us to be very stingy
with granting jurisdicion (which we pay for by the sacrifice of our freedom) to government.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 02:00 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
A pdf copy of the transcript from today's oral arguments:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
Is it possible to obtain it in NON-pdf format,
so we can manipulate it like a paper transcript ?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 02:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
A pdf copy of the transcript from today's oral arguments:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
Is it possible to obtain it in NON-pdf format,
so we can manipulate it like a paper transcript ?
You could save the pdf and then save a copy as text easily enough. Or just cut and paste what you like into your favorite word processing program before pasting it back to A2K.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 02:51 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
A pdf copy of the transcript from today's oral arguments:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
Is it possible to obtain it in NON-pdf format,
so we can manipulate it like a paper transcript ?
You could save the pdf and then save a copy as text easily enough.
Or just cut and paste what you like into your favorite word processing program before pasting it back to A2K.

I 'm computer ignorant; I saved pdf to my computer
and even with my Adobe Reader, it did not open, except in computer code.

Copying & pasting a paragraf at a time is time consuming n tedious.

This problem arose when the HELLER decision first came out,
but then it became available in non-pdf format.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 02:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David -- you can copy & paste text from PDF files. The only thing you have to do first is to click a button in Acrobat viewer that looks like this:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll88/guthobla/PDF_Copy_Paste.png

After clicking this button, you can select, copy, and paste like you're used to do it in other applications.

To get back into the previous mode, click the button with the hand, to the right of the one I highlighted.

Hope that helps.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:52 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
David -- you can copy & paste text from PDF files. The only thing you have to do first is to click a button in Acrobat viewer that looks like this:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll88/guthobla/PDF_Copy_Paste.png

After clicking this button, you can select, copy, and paste like you're used to do it in other applications.

To get back into the previous mode, click the button with the hand, to the right of the one I highlighted.

Hope that helps.
Thomas, I see the /77 but to the right is a round button with a minus sign on it ( - ).
I don 't see the symbol that u circled in red.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
If you like, you can throw me an email at [email protected] identifying yourself as OmSigDAVID; and I'll send you the text document.
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:56 pm
Great discussion! I appreciate the points made by all. I am no second amendment expert. What struck me about this case is that the Heller decision dealt with D.C. (a federal jurisdiction). The McDonald case would require incorporation through the 14th amendment as joefromchicago and Setanta point out.

Highseas additionally points out that the plaintiff is black. His attorney, Alan Gura, also highlighted this aspect of the case in his introductory remarks:
Quote:
In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:11 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If you like, you can throw me an email at [email protected] identifying yourself as OmSigDAVID; and I'll send you the text document.
Most kind of u Bill; I have now received a paper copy from a friend.
If I may ask: where or how did u obtain a non-pdf version ?

Thanx again for your thoughtfulness.





David
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The same way I suggested you do.
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You could save the pdf and then save a copy as text
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:22 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The same way I suggested you do.
You could save the pdf and then save a copy as text

My computer was not too co-operative with that.
I coud only paste a few words (about a vertical inch of text) at a time. Its a 77 page job.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 10:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David - check your e-mail, I just sent you the whole text in Word 2007. If your computer has the 2003 version, let me know and I'll send it in that version.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 11:50 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

David - check your e-mail, I just sent you the whole text in Word 2007.
If your computer has the 2003 version, let me know and I'll send it in that version.
Yes; it has the older version. Thank u.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 12:20 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
Great discussion! I appreciate the points made by all. I am no second amendment expert.
What struck me about this case is that the Heller decision dealt with D.C. (a federal jurisdiction).
The McDonald case would require incorporation through the 14th amendment as joefromchicago
and Setanta point out.
Not necessarily; by one means, the right to keep and bear arms (KABA) can curtail the power of the States
independently of the 14th Amendment, to wit:
Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution of 1787 sets forth that:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The USSC has the option of defining the fundamental right,
the natural and pre-existing right to KABA in self defense,
as being an immunity of the citizens of the United States.
By using that approach, overruling SLAUGHTERHOUSE or overruling
BARRON v. BALTIMORE are obviated, as is the necessity
of employing the vague n hazy "due process" clause of the
14th Amendment or its "Privileges or Immunities" clause.

Note that I believe that both BARRON and SLAUGHTERHOUSE were very, very poorly decided
and I 'd dump them if it were my choice, but the USSC is disinclined to do so.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 12:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Done.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 12:46 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Done.
Thank u very much.
I received it and it opened. I 've saved it.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/04/2020 at 02:39:18