Two reasons for the appeal of the 14th Amendment: the ratification of the 14th Amendment violated Article V of the Constitution; and the second reason is its abuse for the federal governments encroachment on state's rights, and the incorporation of the first eight amendments, which was not the intent of the men who created the amendment. The Amendment had a single purpose, and its use today does not remotely align with its purpose. As Bingham stated, this language will not impose upon any State of the Union, or any citizen of the Union, any obligation which is not now enjoined upon them by the very letter of the Constitution. Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which read: all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed. Reading the debates in the Congress of the 14th Amendment, and remarks made by the authors, the phrase under the jurisdiction of had a specific meaning. Anyone born in the United States could be a citizen if their, this was the criteria, father did not owe an allegiance to another country. This would eliminate the doctrine of birth right citizenship, as an illegal person has allegiance to their country of origin. This was later clarified under Section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Statutes by the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. Bingham, who authored the citizenship section, clarified Section 1992: every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. James Wilson, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stated, We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments. The purpose of the equal protection clause was intended to force the states to apply the laws equally regarding state laws. The debate in the Congress centered around gun laws. Kim Wong Ark was one of the most embarrassing court decisions. When a justice gives this reason for their ruling: "Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. Gray stated that the reasons and meaning of the clause was irrelevant. Gray also stated that Trumball really meant for this clause be a blanket citizenship clause for anyone born in U.S. soil. Trumballs statement of what he meant with the clause is in stark contrast to what Gray is assigning: to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen. Even though, the court attempted to state that the ruling was limited to members of Indian tribes. There is no inaliable right to citizenship, and the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate citizenship. The only intent of the 1st clause was to give the freed slaves national citizenship, which was dependent on state citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment.
A Constitutional Amendment can modify a prior clause in the Constitution. Remember that the US Constitution was created as a contract between the States and just like any clause in any contract can be amended and so can any clause in the US Constitution. This is simple contract law. The 17th Amendment, for example, changed how Senators were to be elected that modified Article I where the State Legislatures elected the Senators from the State. Yes, the first clause of the 14th Amendment did have one purpose. It addressed the violations of the unenumerated inalienable Rights of the Person being committed under statutory laws. It enumerated protections of inalienable Rights that were previously protected by the 9th Amendment but, because they were not enumerated, were being violated under statutory law. In enumerating the criteria for natural born citizens (i.e. born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) it clarified what had always been the basis for natural born citizenship in the United States. It didn't change the accepted criteria for natural born citizenship but instead enunerated it because the States had been violating the "natural born citizenship" Right of People in the United States (i.e. predominately African-Americans but the criteria applies to all persons). In the US v Kim Wong Ark decision the Supreme Court covered extensively the basis for "natural born citizenship" as understood during the initial ratification of the US Constitution which was citizenship based upon jus soli as enumerated in the 14th Amendment. Additionally the 14th Amendment also addressed another violation of the inalienable Right of the Person to equal protection under the law, that once again was an protected but unenumerated Right under the 9th Amendment, that statutory laws were violating. All persons have an inalienable Right to Equal Protection under all statutory laws in the United States but people were having this inalienable Right violated by statutory laws. Finally the first clause clarified that life, liberty, and property could not be denied without due process of the law. This also relates to the inalienable Rights of the Person and merely afforded additional protections for it that before were not enumerated. Once again this related to an unenumerated Right of the Person protected under the 9th Amendment but that was being violated. It is also true that what is written in an Amendment takes precedent over the opinions of those that argue for or against the Amendment. The Amendment is the "LAW" while opinions expressed are not. The States, in ratifying a Constitutional Amendment, are not ratifying "opinions" but instead are ratifying what the Amendment states regardless of political opinions previously expressed. The Amendment is enforced as written and not the political opinions related either for or against it. Once agian this is a simple principle of contract law. That contract takes precedent. By way of analogy we can address the 19th Amendment that gave women the Right to Vote. As a person women were being discriminated against under the US Constitution by the denial of the franchise of the vote. The 19th Amendment revised the previous provisions of the US Constitution which only provided the Right to Vote to free men. The inalienable Right of the Woman, that was a person, were being violated by both statutory laws and the US Constitution itself and this injustice that violated the inalienable Rights of the Woman as a Person were finally addressed. The greatest reason for new Amendments to the US Constitution are the enumeration of protections of inalienable Rights that are being violated. I can think of no greater or more compelling reason for Amending the US Constitution. The very purpose of our government is to protect our inalienable Rights and when they are being violated then, even though they are in theory protected by the 9th Amendment, it's time for a Constitutional Amendment to enumerate the protections to ensure against future violatations That is exactly what Clause One of the 14th Amendment did. No one's Rights are violated by the 14th Amendment while our inalienable Rights are protected by it. I am, for example, a natural born citizen and the 14th Amendment prohibits any statutory law from infringing upon my Inalienable Right of Citizenship. I cannot have my citizenship "revoked" by law nor can I be expelled from or denied re-entry into the United States because I'm a natural born citizen.
Granny says she oughta be able to sling her Mossburg 12ga. acrost her back an' go into town if she wants to... Supreme Court May Decide to Take up Gun Carry Case Tomorrow April 14, 2013 - As Congress and state legislatures debate gun control, the high court is likely to hear a case in the near future challenging state restrictions on carrying guns outside the home.
What granny "oughta be able to" do is different from what granny can do. Many misrepresent the 2nd Amendment because of it's wording. The "Person" does not have an Inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms even though this is the wording of the 2nd Amendment. The Person has an Inalienable Right of Self-Defense against the acts of aggression by others. The US Constitution often misrepresents the actual Inalienable Right as it does in the 2nd Amendment. Inalienable Rights can't actually be infringed upon. They can be violated but not infringed upon as any "infringement" is actually a violation of the Inalienable Right. What can be infringed upon is the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right. When we look at the 2nd Amendment it refers to "arms" but a person doesn't require a tool "arms" to defend themself. When the 2nd Amendment was being addressed by Madison he, and the other founders realized a person in exercising their Inalienable Right of Self-Defense would be at a great disadvantage if the person committing the act of aggression had a firearm but the person exercising their Right of Self-Defense didn't. A person without a firearm can defend themself against someone without a firearm but they are definately at a disadvantaqe in doing so. The 2nd Amendment was really about leveling the playing field for a person related to their Inalienable Right of Self-Defense against the acts of aggression by another person regardles of whether the aggressor was working on their own or working for a government. The 2nd Amendment addresses the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Self-Defense just like the 1st Amendment addresses "Freedom of Speech" which related to the Inalienable Right of Thought of the Person. Freedom of Speech is the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Throught of the Person by expression. Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right can be limited. For example with Freedom of Speech we prohibit yelling fire in a theater (unless there really is a fire) because it creates panic that endangers the "public safety" and that does not violate the Inalienable Right of Thought of the Person. We limit the expression of the thought but don't violate the Right of the Person related to their Thought. We can and should understand that pragmatic necessities can justify limitations on the Freedom to Exercise and Inalienable Right but there are conditions related to this. A pragmatic necessity has to be based upon a valid reason where the Inalienable Rights of the Person are being protected. We can't yell "Fire" because the panic would result in the violations of the Right of Self of the Person in the theater that would be subject to harm caused by this "expression of thought" by another person. There is no logical reason to allow a person to yell "Fire" in a theater regardless of their Inalienable Right of Thought. At the sametime even when we can identify a pragmatic necessity to limit the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right the limitation should be to the least extent possible to meet the requirements of the pragmatic necessity. We don't prohibit a person from yelling "Water" in the theater because that has nothing to do with the pragmatic necessity in preventing panic that would harm people. We already have limitations related to the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression by others related to firearms. One that we can acknowledge is the requirement to have a special permit and registration of fully automatic firearms. The pragmatic necessity for this was established in the 1930's when criminal gangs were using fully automatic weapons to commit mass murder. The limitation imposed on the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Self-Defense did not infringe in any manner upon the Right itself, it was based upon an identified pragmatic necessity, and it was the least possible limitation on the Freedom to Exercise the Right in addressing the pragmatic necessity. It was a good limitation. When "Granny" take a firearm out into public she does create a potential threat to the "public safety" which can provide the foundation for a pragmatic necessity to limit her Freedom to Exercise her Right of Self-Defense. If we were, for example, require her to have a license and register the firearm it would in no way violate her Right of Self-Defense although it would impose a minor limitation on her Freedom the Exercise the Right of Self-Defense. It can easily be argued that this is a pragmatic limitation on Granny's Freedom to Exercise her Inalienable Right of Self-Defense but it doesn't violate her Right in any manner. Based upon the above criteria Granny can carry her Mossberg 12ga in public whenever she wants as long as she has a license to do that and the firearm is registered. This does assume that she won't be denied the license if she applies for it and isn't prohibited from having the license issued by the Court (based upon a criminal conviction or mental health issue the court and law establishes that she represents a serious threat of being the "aggressor" against others). We can argue that limitation of the Freedom to Exercise the Right and it is not an infringement upon the 2nd Amendments prohibition against any infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The person can keep and bear arms but does need to meet certian criteria. This argument doesn't work related to firearms in the home where no public safety threat exists. The registration of a firearm that is never taken into the public cannot be supported as a pragmatic necessity based upon the protection of the Rights of Others in Society. By analogy a person can yell "Fire" all they want in their home. Pragmatic necessity can justify a limitation on the Freedom to Exercise and Inalienable Right but such limitations must always be to the least extent possible in protecting the Inalienable Rights of other Persons in society. A simple criteria that should always be applied in our laws.
I wanted to readdress this. First of all I don't know what questions there are related to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Each State legislature was required to "ratify" the amendment and when 3/4ths of the States did so then it became an Amendment to the US Constitution as provided for by Article V of the Contitution. Once ratified it applied to all of the states per Article V of the Constitution. We can also note that the US Constitution can never infringe upon "Reserved Powers" of the States (State Rights) or the People as established by the 10th Amendment. It the US Constitution delegates a "power" to the federal government or prohibits an act of government that the States have ratified as an Amendment then the States have agreed to the federal government exercising the power or the limitation of the State related to the prohibition. When we look at the "equal protection clause" for example the States agreed that they could not have any laws that denied equal protection to any person in their State under State laws or the State constitution. The States imposed this upon themselves by ratification of the Amendment. This is why, for example, the reason the States cannot complain citing "States Rights" if the US Supreme finds that the prohibitions against same-sex (gender) marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause. This is not an infringement upon the Power of the State to define marriage because in defining marriage the Constitution prevents the State from denying equal protection to ALL persons in the State related to marriage. Yes, the States can define "marriage" but cannot discriminate against any person in doing so. There can be minor exceptions to the "equal protection clause" if there is a compelling interest of the State such as protecting the inalienable Rights of another Person but allowing same-sex (gender) marriage doesn't violate anyone else's Inalienable Rights which is why it's highly questionable whether the prohibitions are Constitutional. As I menioned in my prior post a limitation on the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right (e.g. the inalienable Right of Association between consenting persons) needs to be based upon a pragmatic necessity related to the protections of the Rights of other Persons. No one's Rights are protected by the denial of same-sex (gender) marriage and I would personally conclude the laws prohibiting same-sex (gender) marriage are both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Uncle Ferd wonderin' if he can patent his 'womens attractin' genes... Court: Can human genes be patented? 15 Apr.`13 WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court seemed worried Monday about the idea of companies patenting genes that can be found inside the human body, as it heard arguments in a case that could profoundly reshape U.S. medical research and the fight against diseases like breast and ovarian cancer.
Shiva_TD, thank you for your thoughtful posts. Does any state have a law that explicitly forbids the shouting of "fire" in large crowded places? Oliver Wendell Holmes used that one example in his argument for "clear and present danger" as the only valid reason to limit speech. At issue was the right to criticize the government during wartime, which, in general, results in little more than grumbling, when heard ever so passionately. Laws against inciting a riot or causing a disturbance (like insulting a policeman's mother on a porch) can be used, and if any real harm was done in the theater few would object to a jail sentence. Speech being extended to erotic dances and art seems to be an overstretch in the liberal end. Treason is serious and a decision on whether it can apply to a standard speech or newspaper article is always at issue. The second amendment came at a time when the US had no standing army. At any time the British or Spanish could invade and the states needed civilians who could instantly become soldiers. They had no time to train people how to shoot, buy them all guns and bullets. They had no budget. They needed people who could instantly pick up their own weapons, which they knew how to use, and prepare for battle. Also, at least half the people lived on the frontier, where bears, coyotes or poisonous snakes might cross their paths at any time. You need a gun. A fox in the henhouse could cost you 50 meals and your only chance at a profit for the year, so shooting it might mean life and death. Your own dog could get rabies and be a threat to the family. Most importantly, some states were still very British in their thinking and might restrict gun ownership to elite landowners. Who needs a gun more than a recently freed slave in the deep south?
Under the law in all 50 States it's actually called "Reckless Endangerment" as opposed to specifically addressing just the limited case of yelling "fire" in a theater. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_per...e_in_a_crowded_building_when_there_is_no_fire
All of what is listed are just situations or cases where a person would have the need to exercise their Inalienable Right of Self-Defense against an act of aggression (even if it was being committed by a bear). The Inalienable Right is the Right of Self-Defense and we can create an endless list of when a person requires the Freedom to Exercise this Inalienable Right. As I accurately noted the 2nd Amendment really addressed the fact that an unarmed person would be at a distinct disadvantage if the person commiting an act of aggression against them was armed. We don't actually have any Inalienable Rights related to an "object" such as a firearm as all Inalienable Rights are inherent in the Person and are independent of any other person or objects.
Bingham also said in 1862: The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birthnatural born citizens.[17] I think the beauty of the Wong Kim Ark decision is that it makes it clear what we all grew up knowing- that anyone born here in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, and can aspire to grow up and be elected President- it is the great promise to our immigrants that their children will in everyway be equal to anyone else born here.
Wasn't the right to bear arms in England a privilege granted to nobles or families the king liked? Did a state like South Carolina allow every resident to own a gun in 1787? Did any state require permits to own guns? Were early permit laws ever challenged in court? what would disqualify a person from buying a gun in 1866 for instance?
Why not add the rest? I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Actually that isn't the rest, but this is The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words “natural-born citizen of the United States” occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend on complexion any more than it depends on the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance of their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians. The reason why that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several Indian tribes were recognized at the organization of this Government as independent sovereignties. They were treated with as such; and they have been dealt with by the Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore, they were excluded from the general rule. This provision is simply declaratory of what the law now is… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1115-(1866). Representative Wilson apparently disagreed This provision is simply declaratory of what the law now is… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.”Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1115-(1866). Then there was Senator Trumbull: By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872) It is interesting to discuss what was intended, but we all know who is a natural born citizen- anyone born in the U.S. with the exceptions- children of ambassadors and invading armies. I learned that almost 40 years ago, and it is what every American knows and I think it is the essentially American ideal. Congressional Globe 37th Congress 2nd session 1862 (page 1639).
My point is that if guns were banned in the state of New Hampshire in 1791 most of the population would be killed by wild animals, starve to death or leave the state for fear within two years. If guns were banned in georgia in 1791 an invading Spanish army from Florida could subdue the state within months. The British during the war marched through the south until they were stopped at Yorktown. That could happen again at any time, this time starting from Maine. The federal government had no standing army and would have to recruit very hastily. On the other hand a southern plantation state could enact a law that would limit gun ownership to people who own at least 100 acres of land, turning a state like South Carolina into a set of feudal fiefdoms. By letting anyone have a gun small farmers were safe from plantation owners. The fact that I might have a gun makes even the biggest thug hesitate before trying to rob me. If he was sure I didn't have one and he does, he has no hesitation.
Look, you're giving me all this historical minutiae and evidently expect me to deduce from it what your point is about 2A as it applies today, but I'm not about to make the effort.
One more try. A strong tall man with no gun sees a short woman with a purse. He can beat her in a fistfight, wrestling match or tug of war, but if she has a gun she can shoot him and win so he doesn't try to rob her. Even if he has a gun and points it at her and she gives him her purse, she might draw her gun and shoot him in the back while he walks away. She's safe. If neither of them had a gun, she loses. Guns are equalizers. It's no surprise that mass shooters go to places where they know no one has a gun, then kill themselves or surrender when someone with a gun shows up. The Fort Hood shooter didn't surrender because the woman was so inept she couldn't kill him with four bullets.
The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has a specific ans common meaning. The author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, explains what the clause means stated during the debates: Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. Trumbull them weighs in: The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Then Howard weight in on what Trumbull stated: Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Sen. W. Williams: In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Even Bingham concurred with the intent of the citizenship clause.
Sop-heads get to skirt the law... Supreme Court Rules Against Warrantless DUI Blood Tests Apr. 17, 2013 - In divided ruling handed down today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Missouri police violated the 4th Amendment by obtaining a warrantless and nonconsensual blood sample from a man suspected of drunk driving.
A "privilege" afforded by government under the law is not a Right. Great Britian, even today, doesn't actually acknowledge the Rights of the Person but instead addresses them as "privileges" under statutory law. There isn't a 9th Amendment and Great Brittian doesn't even have a Constitution. It is a parliamentary monarchy and technically the monarchy still retains absolute control of the government. Politcal theory would establish that the Queen still has the legal authority to dismantle the British Parliament as it was the monarchy that created the Parliament. By the same token the States also have the authority under Article V of the US Constitution to dismantle the United States government. With 2/3rds of the States calling for a Constitutional Convention and upon ratification of 3.4ths of the States the United States could be desolved. If the State desolved the United States then the People could, in turn, disolve their individual State government as the People granted the authority to the State government in the United States. Whoever grants power to government has ultimate authority over government. Nice question as to what would prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm in 1866. If they were incarcerated they would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm even in 1866 and, in fact, prisoners were always prohibited from owning or possessing "arms" historically. The expansion of that to after the incarceration was ended was imposed by the Court just as it is today. It can be acknowledged that the laws often mandate the Court to impose this restriction but its still imposed by the Court. The same is true for the mentally ill as the court can limite their Freedom to Exercise their Right of Self-Defense by prohibiting the person from owning or possessing a firearm if they represent a threat to the Public Safety. Public Safety is a ligitimate concern of the government. That's why we have speed limits on the road today. That why most environmental laws are reasonable as pollution creates a Public Safety concern. There are also Public Safety issues related to firearms and addressing issues of "Public Safety" are a ligitimate concern. As I've also noted my possession of firearms in my home does not represent a "Public Safety" issue so restrictions upon my ability to own firearms for the personal defense of my home cannot be logically supported based upon a pragmatical necessity. If I choose to carry them in public then they do represent a "Public Safety" concern and reasonable regulations can be justified in such cases.
Doesn't the agency dispensing the funding have the right to set the conditions?... Supreme Court weighs 'loyalty oaths' for groups fighting AIDS April 22, 2013, WASHINGTON The groups object to having to explicitly oppose prostitution and sexual trafficking in order to receive U.S. aid.
This would actually be a case where the woman was committing the act of aggression and murder under the law. A person leaving the scene of a crime does not present an "imminate threat of bodily harm or death" which is the only situation where a person can use deadly force in self-defense.
The Department of Justice does have an obligation to defend federal law so long as such defense is rational but here the case clearly is not. There are no federal laws prohibiting prostitution and we have legal prostitution in the United States so the criteria related to it in our federal law cannot be supported. The position presented by the plaintiff is reasonable whereas the law's requirement is not supported because prostitution has always been legal in the United States under our federal statutes.
It sort of amazes me that this would be a split decision as it is obviously a clear case of violation of the person's protected Right against self-incrimination. To my knowledge the states cannot force a person to take a "breath test" or a "blood test" or submit to "sobriety tests" if they are suspected of driving under the influence but failure to do so results in revocation of their drivers license. In theory law enforcement could establish the person was driving under the influence without these tests but pragmatically it can't. I've never been pulled over in such a case but logically I'd ask to see an attorney before doing anything. I might lose my drivers license but it would be highly unlikely that I could be convicted of DUI which carries severe penalties that can include losing my drivers license anyway. Many DUI attorneys actually advise a person to request an attorney before submitting to any tests as it "buys" time and a person might "sober-up" before the tests can be done. This is not a refusal to take the test but instead is merely requesting that an attorney be present to advise the person before they voluntarily commit an act of self-incrimination by sumbitting to questioning and tests that would provide compelling evidence of guilt to the court.
