when are rights validated by the Supreme Court invalid?
I have read much on rights for citizenship as well as the Bill of Rights all the way to 14th Amendment rights.
let me take you one step further as to the meaning in 2nd amendment decress by The Chief justices
lets begin with Barron Vs Baltimore”
The second Amendment much like the other Amendments 1-10 of the Federal Constitution must be viewed in a different light than we previously thought. The foundation regarding the second Amendment (and the other Amendments) stems predominantly from Barron v Mayor of Baltimore 32 US 243 (1833). But understanding what was done becomes an exercise in obfuscation when attempting to arrive at a conclusion by making sense out of what others have written about it. Several key words and phrases are vacant from these works that would be more than useful in explaining the courts position. Any time we read a superior court case we MUST define the parties if we are to have any hope in understanding the courts position. An examination of the courts view on the second Amendment will help to reveal that the court indeed does have a doctrine with regards to the Bill of Rights and more importantly the second Amendment.
In District of Columbia v Heller in the court of appeals in 2008, the court ruled that Heller had a second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The court also acknowledged the prefatory clause as dealing with a certain class of person, in this case an individual, and so was restrictive of Federal intervention due to Barron. While Barron isn’t mentioned Cruikshank is mentioned and we can arrive at our conclusions by the amalgamated cases from there. While Heller acknowledged the longstanding view of the court regarding classes of citizens belonging to different political communities, it also deftly avoids naming them specifically by standing on the word “Individual”. Heller does however give more than ample evidence to the courts true intention by addressing the phrase, “right of the people”by stating,
District of Columbia v Heller;
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5” So in these instances it can be clearly seen that individual and the people are interchangeable and members of the same political community. It is that class of citizen Heller is addressing when using the people and individual.
then
Next we will examine United States v Cruikshank 92 US 542 since Heller mentions it as well. This case is a foundational case in dealing with several topics. The number 1 topic is the second Amendment. The other is State citizenship. Viewing these two as separate is a critical mistake made seemingly by every educated person who attempts a discourse out of this case. Remember what we said earlier that we should identify the parties before we can apply the meaning of the case and the courts position? Cruikshank makes it very clear that in order to apply Federal jurisdiction, certain provisions must be met. The court dances around the issue with deftness and skill by putting the reader into the position of assembling the meanings into a cogent form, thereby making the necessary connections.
Cruikshank begins with the foundation………..membership in the political community. What political communities? The existent political communities are defined as State and Federal. Cruikshank spells it out for us, “2. There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those he has under the other.” Two different political communities with two different sets of rights under their protection. The political communities have a dual membership, meaning the members of one can at the same time be members of the other. So the court must always define under which political community and it’s Jurisdictions the party is applying.
In the case of Cruikshank members of the African American race were seeking relief from what they deemed as their Constitutional rights under the Federal Constitution. The plaintiffs averred multiple points of claim as they sought Federal protection of certain enumerated rights. In Barron, these rights had been put under State protection and Jurisdiction for State enforcement, not for Federal intervention. The plaintiffs claim standing under the 14th Amendment thereby defining for the court which protections it can and cannot apply. Since 14th Amendment citizens make up the Federal class of citizens, conversely State citizenship makes up the other. If the plaintiffs would have sought relief under that class of citizenship that makes up the States, the court then infers that it still would lack the Jurisdiction as in Barron, because those enumerated rights (Amendments 1-10) were restrictive of National action only.
So then the only rights the court could have applied in Cruikshank, were whatever rights had been incorporated back into the Federal Constitution since Barron. Since the plaintiffs sought particular rights that had not been incorporated, the court lacked the ability to give relief. Most particularly with the second Amendment. In order to make certain we have deduced the courts position correctly we need to examine other cases where it was clear that the party seeking relief was not a member of the political community that is entrusted with those particular rights.
thank you for your attention.
