What is Incorporation?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Separatist
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1150

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Separatist »


User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

From the preamble to the Bill of Rights (did you know there was one?):

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

In other words, the bill of rights was construed to be further restrictions upon the general government being contemplated, not applicable to state governments already in existence and already protecting rights in their already formed political societies.

The above podcast with Connor Boyack and Kevin Gutzman explains it plainly.


User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

This from a recent email from historian Brion McClanahan:
Pro "2nd Amendment" and gun grabbers get this wrong.

Joe Biden has proposed a $200 tax on every privately held "assault weapon" in America coupled with a $200 tax on every high capacity magazine in private hands.

That would essentially make owning a federally classified "assault rife" a privilege only for the wealthy and would make millions of law abiding Americans tax dodgers.

But it is unconstitutional. Why? Because the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting this type of regulation. In fact, all federal regulations that prohibit the sale of any type of firearm are illegal, at least according to an original understanding of the Constitution.

But that should not be confused with State firearm regulations. If California imposed these types of restrictions, they would be legal if the legislation in question did not violate the California State Constitution. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply.

Now, that would be bad legislation, but it would not be unconstitutional legislation according to the United States Constitution.

This is where both pro and anti-gun people make mistakes.

If you want the Supreme Court to knock down State gun laws or laws against religious gatherings, be prepared for the same federal court system to rule that State bans on same-sex marriage or transgender bathrooms are also unconstitutional.

If you live by incorporation, you die by incorporation.

These are decisions best made by the people of a political community. Alabama doesn't need California legislating for it, nor vice versa...

...Federalism, it's what's for dinner.

Americans wouldn't be so angry if the general government wasn't so involved in our lives. Think about all the depressed Trumpsters right now. They would be happy and healthy. Or how about the people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. That wouldn't even exist if we followed the original Constitution.

That might be a pipe dream, and honestly that original Constitution was shredded in 1789 almost immediately after the First Congress met, but education is the key to making a better world.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

ajax wrote: November 29th, 2020, 8:28 pm This from a recent email from historian Brion McClanahan:
Pro "2nd Amendment" and gun grabbers get this wrong.

Joe Biden has proposed a $200 tax on every privately held "assault weapon" in America coupled with a $200 tax on every high capacity magazine in private hands.

That would essentially make owning a federally classified "assault rife" a privilege only for the wealthy and would make millions of law abiding Americans tax dodgers.

But it is unconstitutional. Why? Because the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting this type of regulation. In fact, all federal regulations that prohibit the sale of any type of firearm are illegal, at least according to an original understanding of the Constitution.

But that should not be confused with State firearm regulations. If California imposed these types of restrictions, they would be legal if the legislation in question did not violate the California State Constitution. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply.

Now, that would be bad legislation, but it would not be unconstitutional legislation according to the United States Constitution.

This is where both pro and anti-gun people make mistakes.

If you want the Supreme Court to knock down State gun laws or laws against religious gatherings, be prepared for the same federal court system to rule that State bans on same-sex marriage or transgender bathrooms are also unconstitutional.

If you live by incorporation, you die by incorporation.

These are decisions best made by the people of a political community. Alabama doesn't need California legislating for it, nor vice versa...

...Federalism, it's what's for dinner.

Americans wouldn't be so angry if the general government wasn't so involved in our lives. Think about all the depressed Trumpsters right now. They would be happy and healthy. Or how about the people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. That wouldn't even exist if we followed the original Constitution.

That might be a pipe dream, and honestly that original Constitution was shredded in 1789 almost immediately after the First Congress met, but education is the key to making a better world.
I don't like

State law trumps the constitution?
No...

The feds can't infringe on my right to bear arms but the state can ? Lol no a bunch of clown in utah can subject me because they vote "ya" to tyrann?

I don't live under my mob rule... I don't want to trade Federal despots for State despots.

saying the Constitution only applies to the federal government makes the Constitution useless if my state government is a bunch of tyrant's

User avatar
Michael Sherwin
The Wickerman
Posts: 1984

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Michael Sherwin »

In a business corporation the workers have no power unless they unionize. In a government corporation the people have no power period. It is the officials that choose the leader. They give their 'power' to whom they choose to be the leader. The fourth beast will be such a corporation. The ten kings will give their power to the AC and they will continue ruling with the AC for one hour, 40 years. I don't know what the video said as I have not watched it.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3]

In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole U.S. political structure.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

nightlight wrote: November 29th, 2020, 8:56 pm
ajax wrote: November 29th, 2020, 8:28 pm This from a recent email from historian Brion McClanahan:
Pro "2nd Amendment" and gun grabbers get this wrong.

Joe Biden has proposed a $200 tax on every privately held "assault weapon" in America coupled with a $200 tax on every high capacity magazine in private hands.

That would essentially make owning a federally classified "assault rife" a privilege only for the wealthy and would make millions of law abiding Americans tax dodgers.

But it is unconstitutional. Why? Because the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting this type of regulation. In fact, all federal regulations that prohibit the sale of any type of firearm are illegal, at least according to an original understanding of the Constitution.

But that should not be confused with State firearm regulations. If California imposed these types of restrictions, they would be legal if the legislation in question did not violate the California State Constitution. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply.

Now, that would be bad legislation, but it would not be unconstitutional legislation according to the United States Constitution.

This is where both pro and anti-gun people make mistakes.

If you want the Supreme Court to knock down State gun laws or laws against religious gatherings, be prepared for the same federal court system to rule that State bans on same-sex marriage or transgender bathrooms are also unconstitutional.

If you live by incorporation, you die by incorporation.

These are decisions best made by the people of a political community. Alabama doesn't need California legislating for it, nor vice versa...

...Federalism, it's what's for dinner.

Americans wouldn't be so angry if the general government wasn't so involved in our lives. Think about all the depressed Trumpsters right now. They would be happy and healthy. Or how about the people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. That wouldn't even exist if we followed the original Constitution.

That might be a pipe dream, and honestly that original Constitution was shredded in 1789 almost immediately after the First Congress met, but education is the key to making a better world.
I don't like

State law trumps the constitution?
No...

The feds can't infringe on my right to bear arms but the state can ? Lol no a bunch of clown in utah can subject me because they vote "ya" to tyrann?

I don't live under my mob rule... I don't want to trade Federal despots for State despots.

saying the Constitution only applies to the federal government makes the Constitution useless if my state government is a bunch of tyrant's
Doesn't matter if you "don't like"

That is the original construction and was interpreted as such for 100+ years. Many founders would disagree with you. I suggest you study the topic further.

So you think the "free and independent states" created the general government for the purpose of ruling over them?

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Michael Sherwin wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:02 pm In a business corporation
No what this thread is about

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

nightlight wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:06 pm The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3]

In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole U.S. political structure.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
I suggest you consider:

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-su ... 20of%20any

User avatar
Michael Sherwin
The Wickerman
Posts: 1984

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by Michael Sherwin »

ajax wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:14 pm
Michael Sherwin wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:02 pm In a business corporation
No what this thread is about
I did not say that it was about business. It is about Government and how it rules.

However, I see that we are not talking about incorporation but rather selective incorporation.
Selective incorporation is defined as a constitutional doctrine that ensures that states cannot create laws that infringe or take away the constitutional rights of citizens.
Did anyone mention "selective"? If they did I did not see it. So it is two different things.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

ajax wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:16 pm
nightlight wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:06 pm The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law.[2] However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.[3]

In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law, but when federal law conflicts with the Constitution that law is null and void. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole U.S. political structure.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
I suggest you consider:

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-su ... 20of%20any
Nonsense.

The federal government is not the Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are THE LAW OF THE LAND.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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."
------------

it's clearly outlines that the states are bound by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Supreme law of the LAND.

My guy, a bunch of clowns in my state can't get together and nullify the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Lol I get that they are, hence California in New York and fringing on the right to bear arms. Clearly they agree with you and disregard the supremacy clause

If the state wants to have mob rule, usurp the Bill of Rights and disregard the Constitution of the United States.... It needs to secede.

Clearly the founders disagreed with the state placing itself above the United States Constitution.... Or else there'd be no Supremacy Clause.

Now I see why you think God "suffers" the Constitution... As I recall our conversation a few years back

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

It is only supreme in the powers delegated to it, which are few and defined. All other powers are retained by the states. That's it. Full stop, whether you believe it or not or it hurts your feelings.
nightlight wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:36 pm Now I see why you think God "suffers" the Constitution... As I recall our conversation a few years back
Yeah no kidding. I don't recall our conversation.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

Even nationalist judge John Marshall understood this as the original interpretation in Barron v Baltimore

Incorporation is a new-ish doctrine, only about 100 yrs old, rearing its head in the early 20th century, over turning the original construction.

This is why we all care and clamour and fight about control over national politics. Because the winner essentially takes all. It is antithetical to a federal republic.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

:D
ajax wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:48 pm It is only supreme in the powers delegated to it, which are few and defined. All other powers are retained by the states. That's it. Full stop, whether you believe it or not or it hurts your feelings.
nightlight wrote: November 29th, 2020, 9:36 pm Now I see why you think God "suffers" the Constitution... As I recall our conversation a few years back
Yeah no kidding. I don't recall our conversation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.
_______________

Ajax!!!! ^^^^^

"and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Anything a state tries to impose, with its state laws or state constitution, that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America..... DOES NOT STAND (notwithstanding)

If this hurts a state's feelings it needs to secede ;)

There would be no point to America if a state could disregard the Bill of Rights without repercussion.

All men have the god given right of freedom of speech, religion, assembly...... regardless of what the majority of a state thinks.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

Incorporation is a redundant notion.

It's how tyrants try to selectively apply the rights which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights grants.

The Fourth amendment wasn't "Incorporated", while the 1st and 2nd were.....LOL

BS

They already are all Incorporated. We don't need clown @#$ judges and lawyers telling us what rights a state can trample or cannot trample

Blows my mind

Think about it.....

Our founder set up a document that prohibits those who govern from taking away our liberties.... UNLESS A STATE WANTS TO?????
NO.... OUR FOUNDERS SAW THROUGH THIS BS..... HENCE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

I think you have done no reading or listening to the links and videos provided. ALL questions you pose have been addressed in spades.

People can either learn or blab. I've done both. But on this topic I have learned before blabbing.

Yes, the federal government is supreme in the powers delegated to it. They are listed. ALL else belongs to the states. The bill of rights is not a list of delegated powers. It is a list of "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" (preamble to bill of rights). Declaratory and restrictive clauses to what? The federal government they were setting up.

They came into being "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the federal governments] powers" This is from the preamble to the bill of rights. Many founders were concerned to protect themselves from the federal government in what they were already protecting in their state constitutions.

Meh, let me just quote the first paragraph of the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

If Utah passes gun control laws, your grievance is with the state, but can't be said to be unconstitutional on a national scale, but rather unconstitutional per Utah's state constitution.

Per Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

Start there.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

"...in pursuance thereof..." dimbulb. Ponder it. Read what the founders thought of it, interpreted it, and sold it to the states and then interpreted thereafter for 100+ years. The states would not have ratified it under any other interpretation. They were not giving the government big daddy powers over everyone. The states were not relegated to national counties or mere administrative units of the federal government. The states delegated powers, which are listed. They cannot exercise those powers delegated. On the other hand, the feds can only exercise powers delegated. They are supreme in those powers delegated and not supreme in everything else. Those unlisted powers are retained by the states. The bill of rights further clarifies the central government, which they were creating, would also not have the power to trample basic rights, which were already being protected by the states.

"Dimbulb", okay, okay, that was a low blow but I thought it was kind of funny. You can call me whatever you think would be the greek equivalent of an insult to "ajax"

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

ajax wrote: November 29th, 2020, 10:56 pm "...in pursuance thereof..." dimbulb. Ponder it. Read what the founders thought of it, interpreted it, and sold it to the states and then interpreted thereafter for 100+ years. The states would not have ratified it under any other interpretation. They were not giving the government big daddy powers over everyone. The states were not relegated to national counties or mere administrative units of the federal government. The states delegated powers, which are listed. They cannot exercise those powers delegated. On the other hand, the feds can only exercise powers delegated. They are supreme in those powers delegated and not supreme in everything else. Those unlisted powers are retained by the states. The bill of rights further clarifies the central government, which they were creating, would also not have the power to trample basic rights, which were already being protected by the states.

"Dimbulb", okay, okay, that was a low blow but I thought it was kind of funny. You can call me whatever you think would be the greek equivalent of an insult to "ajax"
It's goods , dude...I'm not offended lol

You're quoting Michael jolly, I read the paper.

But here's the thing, the Bill of Rights is in "pursuance thereof". Lol YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?
MEANING.... State laws and constitution that are contrary to the Bill of Rights and Constitution are not applicable....

You claim that elective officials can nullify the second amendment...lol

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

THE STATE CANNOT CREATE A LAW TO CONTRADICT THIS.....OR THERE WOULD BE NO POINT OF OUR COUNTRY

SOUNDS LIKE 🥛 AND 🍪 ;)

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

nightlight wrote: November 29th, 2020, 10:30 pm Incorporation is a redundant notion.

It's how tyrants try to selectively apply the rights which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights grants.

The Fourth amendment wasn't "Incorporated", while the 1st and 2nd were.....LOL

BS

They already are all Incorporated. We don't need clown donkey judges and lawyers telling us what rights a state can trample or cannot trample

Blows my mind

Think about it.....

Our founder set up a document that prohibits those who govern from taking away our liberties.... UNLESS A STATE WANTS TO?????
NO.... OUR FOUNDERS SAW THROUGH THIS BS..... HENCE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
This is the point of checks and balances.... The state checks the FEDs and the FEDS check the state.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by ajax »

You are fighting against historical facts. That's how it was interpreted from the beginning. That is how it was argued and sold to the states and interpreted in court decisions. It wasn't re-interpreted to apply to the states until the 1920s by the jurists at the time. With the new interpretation, we now all wait with bated breath on who the Supreme Court justices will be. We cling to the elite nine lawyers in black robes to make decisions on everything for everybody. This is not the "federalism" the founders envisioned. The sovereign states were largely already protecting these rights in their already existing state constitutions with already existing declarations of rights prior to ratification. Now they wanted to make sure the general government wouldn't exceed its bounds, thus the language in the preamble to the BoRs.

Even wikipedia gets this right, lol:
Incorporation, in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments.
It is commonly held the incorporation doctrine can be traced back to the 1920s and specifically Gitlow v. New York (1925). Wow, so that is 130yrs where the founders and country viewed it differently. How did we ever survive?

In light of this, you have to ask:
-Were the 1920 jurists more enlightened than the founding generation?
-Why did the founding generation interpret it this way?
-Is there wisdom in this interpretation we have not considered?
-Did they have a stronger understanding of federalism than us?

Now, you may believe that this is the correct interpretation, that this was one of the weaknesses at the beginning and we finally got it right over time, but to argue this is the way it was from the beginning is ahistorical.

I believe the original understanding is superior in the context of a federal republic and the sovereignty of the states, ie the Jeffersonian view of America. If you believe in the "one nation, under God, indivisible" Lincolnian view, where the states are mere administrative units of the center, than incorporation is a godsend. I prefer the former. If the people of Massachusetts want free health care and no guns, that is their prerogative, as a political society/culture who can govern themselves. The feds have NO say.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by nightlight »

ajax wrote: November 30th, 2020, 10:29 am You are fighting against historical facts. That's how it was interpreted from the beginning. That is how it was argued and sold to the states and interpreted in court decisions. It wasn't re-interpreted to apply to the states until the 1920s by the jurists at the time. With the new interpretation, we now all wait with bated breath on who the Supreme Court justices will be. We cling to the elite nine lawyers in black robes to make decisions on everything for everybody. This is not the "federalism" the founders envisioned. The sovereign states were largely already protecting these rights in their already existing state constitutions with already existing declarations of rights prior to ratification. Now they wanted to make sure the general government wouldn't exceed its bounds, thus the language in the preamble to the BoRs.

Even wikipedia gets this right, lol:
Incorporation, in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments.
It is commonly held the incorporation doctrine can be traced back to the 1920s and specifically Gitlow v. New York (1925). Wow, so that is 130yrs where the founders and country viewed it differently. How did we ever survive?

In light of this, you have to ask:
-Were the 1920 jurists more enlightened than the founding generation?
-Why did the founding generation interpret it this way?
-Is there wisdom in this interpretation we have not considered?
-Did they have a stronger understanding of federalism than us?

Now, you may believe that this is the correct interpretation, that this was one of the weaknesses at the beginning and we finally got it right over time, but to argue this is the way it was from the beginning is ahistorical.

I believe the original understanding is superior in the context of a federal republic and the sovereignty of the states, ie the Jeffersonian view of America. If you believe in the "one nation, under God, indivisible" Lincolnian view, where the states are mere administrative units of the center, than incorporation is a godsend. I prefer the former. If the people of Massachusetts want free health care and no guns, that is their prerogative, as a political society/culture who can govern themselves. The feds have NO say.
Strange.....

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, December, 1787

Hmmmmmmmmmm??

Methinks you are killing cattle again , Ajax

User avatar
righteousrepublic
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5580
Location: Telestial Earth

Re: What is Incorporation?

Post by righteousrepublic »

nightlight wrote: November 29th, 2020, 8:56 pm
ajax wrote: November 29th, 2020, 8:28 pm This from a recent email from historian Brion McClanahan:
Pro "2nd Amendment" and gun grabbers get this wrong.

Joe Biden has proposed a $200 tax on every privately held "assault weapon" in America coupled with a $200 tax on every high capacity magazine in private hands.

That would essentially make owning a federally classified "assault rife" a privilege only for the wealthy and would make millions of law abiding Americans tax dodgers.

But it is unconstitutional. Why? Because the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting this type of regulation. In fact, all federal regulations that prohibit the sale of any type of firearm are illegal, at least according to an original understanding of the Constitution.

But that should not be confused with State firearm regulations. If California imposed these types of restrictions, they would be legal if the legislation in question did not violate the California State Constitution. The 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply.

Now, that would be bad legislation, but it would not be unconstitutional legislation according to the United States Constitution.

This is where both pro and anti-gun people make mistakes.

If you want the Supreme Court to knock down State gun laws or laws against religious gatherings, be prepared for the same federal court system to rule that State bans on same-sex marriage or transgender bathrooms are also unconstitutional.

If you live by incorporation, you die by incorporation.

These are decisions best made by the people of a political community. Alabama doesn't need California legislating for it, nor vice versa...

...Federalism, it's what's for dinner.

Americans wouldn't be so angry if the general government wasn't so involved in our lives. Think about all the depressed Trumpsters right now. They would be happy and healthy. Or how about the people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. That wouldn't even exist if we followed the original Constitution.

That might be a pipe dream, and honestly that original Constitution was shredded in 1789 almost immediately after the First Congress met, but education is the key to making a better world.
I don't like

State law trumps the constitution?
No...

The feds can't infringe on my right to bear arms but the state can ? Lol no a bunch of clown in utah can subject me because they vote "ya" to tyrann?

I don't live under my mob rule... I don't want to trade Federal despots for State despots.

saying the Constitution only applies to the federal government makes the Constitution useless if my state government is a bunch of tyrant's
The US Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land

Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.


Instead of giving Congress additional powers, the Supremacy Clause simply addresses the legal status of the laws that other parts of the Constitution empower Congress to make, as well as the legal status of treaties and the Constitution itself. The core message of the Supremacy Clause is simple: the Constitution and federal laws (of the types listed in the first part of the Clause) take priority over any conflicting rules of state law. This principle is so familiar that we often take it for granted. Still, the Supremacy Clause has several notable features.

To begin with, the Supremacy Clause contains the Constitution’s most explicit references to what lawyers call “judicial review”—the idea that even duly enacted statutes do not supply rules of decision for courts to the extent that the statutes are unconstitutional. Some scholars say that the Supremacy Clause’s reference to “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]” itself incorporates this idea; in their view, a federal statute is not “made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]” unless the Constitution really authorizes Congress to make it. Other scholars say that this phrase simply refers to the lawmaking process described in Article I, and does not necessarily distinguish duly enacted federal statutes that conform to the Constitution from duly enacted federal statutes that do not. But no matter how one parses this specific phrase, the Supremacy Clause unquestionably describes the Constitution as “Law” of the sort that courts apply. That point is a pillar of the argument for judicial review. In addition, the Supremacy Clause explicitly specifies that the Constitution binds the judges in every state notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary.

...Under the Supremacy Clause, the “supreme Law of the Land” also includes federal statutes enacted by Congress. Within the limits of the powers that Congress gets from other parts of the Constitution, Congress can establish rules of decision that American courts are bound to apply, even if state law purports to supply contrary rules. Congress also has at least some authority to put certain topics wholly off limits to state law, or otherwise to restrict what state law can validly say about those topics. As long as the directives that Congress enacts are indeed authorized by the Constitution, they take priority over both the ordinary laws and the constitution of each individual state. (During the ratification period, Anti-Federalists objected to the fact that federal statutes and treaties could override aspects of each state’s constitution and bill of rights. But while this feature of the Supremacy Clause was controversial, it is unambiguous.)

In modern times, the Supreme Court has recognized various ways in which federal statutes can displace or “preempt” state law. Some federal statutes include express “preemption clauses” forbidding states to enact or enforce certain kinds of laws. A few other federal statutes have been interpreted as implicitly stripping states of lawmaking power throughout a particular field. But even when a federal statute does not contain an express preemption clause, and even when the statute does not implicitly occupy an entire field to the exclusion of state law, the directives that the statute validly establishes still supersede any conflicting directives that the law of an individual state might purport to supply.

Every year, courts decide an enormous number of cases that involve whether a particular federal statute should be understood to preempt a particular aspect of state law. Often, the key disputes in these cases boil down to questions of statutory interpretation. (If the relevant federal statute includes a preemption clause, what does the clause mean? Should any additional instructions about preemption be inferred? And what is the precise content of all the other legal directives that the statute establishes, whether expressly or by implication?) But apart from disputes about what the relevant federal statute should be understood to say and imply, and apart from any disputes about whether the Constitution really gives Congress the power to say and imply those things, some preemption cases may implicate disagreements about the Supremacy Clause itself. Of course, the basic principle that valid federal statutes preempt conflicting rules of state law is not controversial. But different judicial opinions suggest different views about what counts as a conflict for this purpose, and some of those disagreements may grow out of the Supremacy Clause: while there is no doubt that the Supremacy Clause sometimes requires courts to disregard rules of decision purportedly supplied by state law, there is room for debate about the precise trigger for that requirement.

Source: https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... clauses/31

Post Reply