(no subject)

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Here's something for the community's U.S. citizens to consider. Cornell's website is very good at linking to sections of the U.S. constitution inkblotted by amendments. What it does not do is link Article III section II to the 14th amendment. Article III Section II, and the Judiciary Act of 1789, are very clear on the fact that the United States court system extends to every sphere except for The People vs Their State. If Article III Section II remains unchanged for all intents and purposes, and the 14th amendment extends the U.S. Bill of Rights to The People vs Their State, then is the only justification for the Supreme Court ruling on things like gun ownership in Chicago based on this clause of section II: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority"?

If aforementioned clause is the justification for the judicial power extending based on the 14th amendment's assertion "No state shall break the 5th amendment" (my paraphrase), why is that statement valid in the context of the 14th amendment but not the 5th? Is not the lack of an explicit statement giving judicial power over The People vs Their State a contradiction?

I'll be going to bed soon. Please talk amongst yourselves.

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

It's not about "life liberty and property," though, it's about the fact that there's a Second Amendment. No Second Amendment, no victory. We saw this in the cases pre-McDonald, where SCOTUS refused to incorporate the Second Amendment via the 14th, and upheld state gun control on that basis.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

It is about life, liberty, and property when the court rules in favor of the second amendment extending as supreme law and justifies it with the due process clause of the 14th. As I understand the court's decision, the handgun ban was overruled solely on the basis of the due process clause, which is firmly attached to "life, liberty, and property".

Never mind the fact that there is no supreme law that's violated by a subordinate government and can be considered supreme, and you can search the papers, notes, and other texts of the convention and find no shortage of statements calling state governments subordinate.