DC v. Heller 5-4 ruling shows judicial activism at work

[10thAmendment]

Regarding DC v. Heller, the case was actually decided in Heller's favor when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

No, DC v. Heller was not a state-power related case. However, the four dissenting justices wrongly ignored the following as evidenced by their attempt to rewrite constitutional history. They ignored that, regardless of their emphasis on the militia aspect of the 2nd, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the post Civil War 14th A., had included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So regardless of the intentions of the drafters of the 2nd A., John Bingham and the 39th Congress made it official that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments.

See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. This page is from one of Bingham's discussions about the 14th Amendment.

• http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

Note that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues on the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.

Again, the misguided arguments of the four dissenting justices in the DC v. Heller opinion are an example of Constitution-ignoring judicial activism at work.

 

[noxagol]

The fact that we are letting the government interpret its own bounds speaks volumes to how much trouble we are in.

 

[Flash The Cash]

Regarding DC v. Heller, the case was actually decided in Heller's favor when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

No, DC v. Heller was not a state-power related case. However, the four dissenting justices wrongly ignored the following as evidenced by their attempt to rewrite constitutional history. They ignored that, regardless of their emphasis on the militia aspect of the 2nd, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the post Civil War 14th A., had included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So regardless of the intentions of the drafters of the 2nd A., John Bingham and the 39th Congress made it official that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments.

See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. This page is from one of Bingham's discussions about the 14th Amendment.

• http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

Note that the referenced page is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently reassuring his colleagues on the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.

Again, the misguided arguments of the four dissenting justices in the DC v. Heller opinion are an example of Constitution-ignoring judicial activism at work.

That was very interesting information. Do you know if anything like that, or different that that, was said during the making of the 14th Amendment. Also, do you know of a rule of construction, existent at the time the Amendment was made, that allows us, when interpreting the Amendment, to consider statements made after it was adopted?

 

[10thAmendment]

That was very interesting information. Do you know if anything like that, or different that that, was said during the making of the 14th Amendment. Also, do you know of a rule of construction, existent at the time the Amendment was made, that allows us, when interpreting the Amendment, to consider statements made after it was adopted?

Others have pointed out, and I still need to research this, that one consideration of the making of the 14th A. was the idea of former slaves being able to use guns to protect themselves; not a militia-related purpose.

Regarding the integrity of statements made about an amendment after it's been ratified, if that is your concern, please don't overlook the following. Don't overlook that the previously referenced discussion in the Congressional Globe about the 14th A. was not only made by John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., but that Bingham seems to have been using time allotted to him to address an official session of the House of Representatives to clarify the scope and purpose of that amendment.

Indeed, consider the following statement by Jefferson about interpreting the Constitution.

• "The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59

 

[Flash The Cash]

Regarding the integrity of statements made about an amendment after it's been ratified, if that is your concern, please don't overlook the following. Don't overlook that the previously referenced discussion in the Congressional Globe about the 14th A. was not only made by John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., but that Bingham seems to have been using time allotted to him to address an official session of the House of Representatives to clarify the scope and purpose of that amendment.

Too bad you don't, at this time at least, have any evidence that he said that during the actual making of the amendment.

Indeed, consider the following statement by Jefferson about interpreting the Constitution.

• "The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59

It was well established law, in Jefferson's days, that the will of the legislator was not to be ascertained by exploring his intentions "after" the law had been made. Only his intentions at the time the law made could be considered. (See Blackstone's five basic rules for interpreting laws)

 

[10thAmendment]

Too bad you don't, at this time at least, have any evidence that he said that during the actual making of the amendment.



It was well established law, in Jefferson's days, that the will of the legislator was not to be ascertained by exploring his intentions "after" the law had been made. Only his intentions at the time the law made could be considered. (See Blackstone's five basic rules for interpreting laws)

I'm sorry Flash, but the historical information that I have presented about the 14th A. as it relates to the 2nd A. evidently took you by surprise. In fact, others have raised the opposite concern from what you are saying. Others have pointed out that if Bingham had explained how the 14th A. should relate to the first eight amendments, for example, before the 14th A. had been ratified, then it could be argued that constitutional lawmakers had possibly decided against Bingham's ideas when the 14th A. was finally ratified.

So the bottom line Flash, is that you really aren't making any sense in your attempt to water down Bingham's words reflecting how the history of the 14th A. affects how we are to interpret the 2nd A. today.

 

[Flash The Cash]

...if Bingham had explained how the 14th A. should relate to the first eight amendments, for example, before the 14th A. had been ratified, then it could be argued that constitutional lawmakers had possibly decided against Bingham's ideas when the 14th A. was finally ratified.

The term "privileges and immunities" is ambiguous. If, during the making of the amendment, one or more of the lawmakers had defined the phrase, it would constitute subject matter and probably could be considered when interpreting the phrase.

 

[10thAmendment]

The term "privileges and immunities" is ambiguous. If, during the making of the amendment, one or more of the lawmakers had defined the phrase, it would constitute subject matter and probably could be considered when interpreting the phrase.

Where are you coming from? :^(

Fortunately, I don't often come across unpatriotic people like you who fight "tooth and nail" to water down word meanings in the Constitution and related material.

Again, despite your concern for anything said about a proposed constitutional amendment while it is being drafted, pre-ratification proposals for such statutes have been known to be rejected by the time that the statute is ratified anyway. For example, James Madison's proposal that the states be required to respect certain aspects of the federal BOR was ultimately ignored.

Getting back the 14th A., Bingham not only noted that the "privileges and immunities" term that he used in the 14 A. was inspired by Clause 1 of Sec. 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, but that such privileges and immunities were defined chiefly in the first eight amendments (2nd A. included) at the time that the 14th A. was made. In fact, he noted this right after he read the first eight amendments as indicated on the previously referenced page in the Congressional Globe which you evidently haven't bothered to look at yet.

• "Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

 

[Flash The Cash]

What, if anything, was said by the lawmakers, about the meaning of "privileges and immunities" during the actual making of the 14th Amendment?