Chicago Gun Case Incorporation Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the great info. Al.

Another question: What type of contract/agreement do the States enter into when entering the Union?

Is there a formal agreement in the sense of contract, etc.?

So far, this is as far as I have gotten, (I'll do more searching): (The Enabling Act)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1802

I would think this "contract" or "agreement" would require the recognition of fundamental rights throughout the respective State (i.e., fundamental rights recognized in the U.S constitution and common law).
 
Last edited:
The documents containing details of conditions for statehood have varied state by state.

The annexation of Texas, at the time a sovereign country, was unique in that it started with a treaty that led to statehood.

Here are examples of other congressional acts enabling statehood: Hawaii and Utah.

Here is a list of the statehood process for all states.

Here is a Congressional Record report on statehood histories.
 
Last edited:
RDak, I hope this answers your question:

Article IV, Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.​
The above section of the Constitution does 2 things.

The first clause allows for the admittance of new States into the union, with restrictions on making new States out of existing States. Exactly how this should be done is not specified.

The second clause grants power to the Congress to administer all Federal lands that are not States; Such as making a territory into a State or States.

The enabling Act of 1802 became the precedence of how a new State is to be admitted. It set forth the rules by which a people (of a territory or other possession of the US) could elect representatives and vote on Statehood; Write their own Constitution and petition the Congress for admittance.

It is not a contract, agreement or compact (in the sense of the original 13 colonies under the Articles of Confederation), but a series of official legislative acts by the Congress relative to the people of the proposed State.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the union of the Colonies/States were declared to "be perpetual." The Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect union." The logic then holds that since it took the States of the Union (via the Congress) to admit another State into Union, therefore said State was placed in perpetual union with all other States. That is, the new State was incorporated into the body politic. Such a thing is more than a mere compact, agreement or contract.

To dissolve the incorporation (union) requires that the corporation (union) agree to such dissolution. In other words, How a State became a State (by consent and Acts of the Congress) is exactly how a State would shed its union (by consent and further Acts of Congress). That conforms to Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution.

Any State that had signing documents that seemed to say something different, have no force of law, once admitted into union with the other States.
 
Yes, it helped alot.

A State becomes part of the Union in a more meaningful way than that of a contract or agreement.

It is merged, incorporated, made part of, etc.

Thanks for the info.
 
Still digesting the Clayton/Johnson paper, but the summation on p. 27 is what I've been driving at in terms of intent:

By the end of April 1866, the Joint Committee of Fifteen reported its proposal for the Fourteenth Amendment out to the congress and the debate became public. Introducing the proposed amendment to the Senate, Senator Howard explained the view of the Joint Committee that the “Great object of the first section of this amendment is therefore to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.” These guarantees he urged were the “personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution” including “the right to keep and bear arms.” Howard’s explanation was widely reported in the press.

In the summer of 1866, Congress voted to override Andrew Johnson’s veto of the second Freedman’s Bureau Bill and to approve for ratification the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...
Sources quoted include the minutes of the 39th Congress, 1st Session and Benjamin Kendrick's Journal of the Joint Committee of the Fifteen on Reconstruction.

Of course, we'll be told that this was the obscure, misinterpreted minority opinion of "radicals." :)

It closes with a really interesting passage from an 1872 schoolbook (complete text here), which reads,

15. What are the rights which are secured to every individual by the Constitutions and laws of the United States?

The right to keep and bear arms.

Every individual throughout the nation has the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This accustoms the people to their use. (This right is not allowed by governments that are afraid of the people.)
Click to expand...

Hats off, for the umpteenth time, to Mr. Cramer and his historical erudition.
 
if "Privileges or Immunities" are not the fundamental rights of citizens, then what are they?
Click to expand...
My impression is that the 39th Congress intended the 14th Amendment's term "privileges or immunities" to be limited in scope, to mean some privileges or immunities and not others. For instance, while the Congress referred to Corfield v Coryell, that case defined the P&I so as to include suffrage, and yet laws which said that negroes could not vote did not violate the 14th.

It seems indisputable that the scope was at least to include the rights enumerated in the Civil Rights Act:

"the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property"


A State becomes part of the Union in a more meaningful way than that of a contract or agreement. It is merged, incorporated, made part of, etc.
Click to expand...
The Framers made a distinction between a federal system and a consolidated government ... the US is at its foundation a federal system i.e. a compact between sovereign States.

Of course, we'll be told that [Howard's assertion] was the obscure, misinterpreted minority opinion of "radicals."
Click to expand...

Quoting Howard ad nauseum does not transform his view into the majority view. We have covered this already. It is my understanding that the committee of fifteen did not discuss making the first eight amendments binding against the States, so I don't see how Howard was speaking for them.
 
Last edited:
My impression is that the 39th Congress intended the 14th Amendment's term "privileges or immunities" to be limited in scope, to mean some privileges or immunities and not others. For instance, while the Congress referred to Corfield v Coryell, that case defined the P&I so as to include suffrage, and yet laws which said that negroes could not vote did not violate the 14th.
Click to expand...

Is that your interpretation or a point of law? Considering that the 15th Amendment followed the 14th in ratification by 18 months. I would be surprised if there was any Supreme Court precedent on that issue.

Rather it strikes me reading the debates, particularly the first day introductory debates in both the House and Senate, that Congress has already acknowledged they are going to expand suffrage and that the 14th is going to play a role in protecting that right. For political reasons, it may be a separate amendment; but if there is an indication that Congress wants to exclude suffrage, you sure wouldn't guess it from those debates.
 
I would be surprised if there was any Supreme Court precedent [re: the 14th and suffrage]
Click to expand...
There is Minor v Appersett ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162 ) where a woman claimed that the 14th gave her a right to vote, and the judge said that no, the 14th's P&I do not include suffrage. He also makes a rather profound point, I think, in saying that if the P&I included suffrage, then Article IV, Section 2 would mean that citizens of other States could come to Virginia and we would have to let them vote in our elections. Of course, he was not talking about a right to move to Virginia and become a citizen and thus acquiring a right to vote in our elections, he was talking about someone just coming here and voting, as a Virginian would, because we could not discriminate.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the Waite court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not protect a right that was not in the BoA.

The 19th Amendment was a response to this. Should the right of a woman to vote be infringed in modern times, then it would likely be a 14th Amendment case.
 
Should the right of a woman to vote be infringed in modern times, then it would likely be a 14th Amendment case.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how to take this ... if it is an assertion that in our modern times we wouldn't need to bother with things like the 15th and 19th Amendments because the SCOTUS could give us such things in "legislation from the bench" while misconstruing the 14th Amendment to cover their activist rulings, then I tend to agree ... but if it is an assertion that the 14th is a "living amendment" which meant one thing when it was (supposedly) ratified and means something different in our modern times, then I disagree ... if the amendment did not originally regard suffrage, then it is not a delegation of jurisdiction over suffrage.
 
I see what you are saying Hugh a little more clearly now.

It will be very interesting to read the decision in McDonald.
 
There is Minor v Appersett ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...l=88&invol=162 ) where a woman claimed that the 14th gave her a right to vote, and the judge said that no, the 14th's P&I do not include suffrage.
Click to expand...

I am aware of Minor. Rather I was thinking of a case contemporary with the adoption of the 15th Amendment that would suggest that the drafters of the 14th Amendment were not contemplating an extension of suffrage in the immediate future.

I don't think you'll find that case because it is clear from the debates that they were contemplating such an extension. Although as the dialog between Howard and Johnson concerning the 14th shows, it is clear that some of them foresaw the issue of women's suffrage, which may be why the issue was addressed in a separate amendment.
 
Has everyone at least contacted their respective senators to urge them to sign the pro-second amendment amicus brief in this case? An e-mail would be easy and effective.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
This link can help you find your senators and their contact information.

This week comes the news that U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), are joining forces with U.S. Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), in filing a joint, pro-Second Amendment amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) brief before the Supreme Court in the McDonald v. Chicago case.
NRA-ILA
Click to expand...
 
Has everyone at least contacted their respective senators to urge them to sign the pro-second amendment amicus brief in this case? An e-mail would be easy and effective.
Click to expand...
It's in the works.

Still, it could use more signatures, so if you've got a Democratic congressman, write 'em. Push the fact that this case encompasses numerous civil liberties, not just the 2nd Amendment.
 
Bill, overturning Slaughterhouse based on the P&I clause would be something that even someone like Feinstein and Boxer might get onboard for since it offers the potential to expand federal enforcement of Constitutional guarantees in areas besides firearms rights.

If you couch it in those terms, I am sure you can find a lot of causes that those two Senators favor that would benefit from overturning Slaughterhouse.
 
Last edited:
Bart,

Boxer might waver a little but I think DiFi would make her hold the line. From what I've been told by two people who worked in her SF office at different times, she would vote against any bill that supports 2A rights. My understanding is that if you told her overriding Slaughterhouse would guarantee a woman's right to choose AND equal pay she would vote against it rather than face watching draconian laws in CA, MA, Chicago, NYC and NJ get thrown out in the courts.
 
From what I've been told by two people who worked in her SF office at different times, she would vote against any bill that supports 2A rights
Click to expand...
Sadly, I've heard the same. She got into politics for one reason, and she remains there to pursue one agenda. I doubt she'll budge.

But one legislator's opinion isn't going to change the outcome here. The issue of revisiting the P&I clause has been in the wings for decades, and the 2nd Amendment continues to gain clout in the legal and academic communities. The snowball is rolling.

(Oh, and Bart, I think you meant "overturning Slaughterhouse" :))
 
The "fun" begins today.

The McDonald Merits brief is due to be filed today. Then within the next 10 days, all the amicus briefs will be due.

Anyone think there will be as many amici as there were for Heller?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top