Statement 11 + Footnotes - Revision history

DaveLeach at 04:38, 7 December 2023

2023-12-07T04:38:38Z

Show changes

DaveLeach at 20:54, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T20:54:55Z

Show changes

DaveLeach at 16:59, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:59:50Z

DaveLeach at 16:50, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:50:54Z

DaveLeach at 16:37, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:37:44Z

DaveLeach at 16:36, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:36:10Z

DaveLeach at 16:34, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:34:13Z

DaveLeach at 16:32, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:32:24Z

DaveLeach at 16:30, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:30:38Z

DaveLeach at 16:23, 6 December 2023

2023-12-06T16:23:52Z

@@ Line 673: / Line 673: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The '''“Due Process”''' clause protects unborn babies. SCOTUS has extracted dozens of rights from that poor little clause, none of which are as “fundamental” as the right to live, which Dobbs v. Jackson refuses to protect from murder-driven voters.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The “Congress shall have the '''power to enforce”''' clause protects unborn babies. Unlike mere Supreme Court justices who declared themselves less competent than doctors and preachers to understand whether a baby of humans is a genuine human, Congress figured it out in 2004.
-This protection needs to be pointed out in public and in court as part of stopping courts from grabbing rights-defining and -enforcing  authority from the “due process clause”.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This protection needs to be pointed out in public and in court as part of stopping courts from grabbing rights-defining and -enforcing  authority from the “due process clause”.
-For now, here is a list of...
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For now, here is a list of...
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Landmark Abomination Cases
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The summaries of each case listed here are excerpted from the cases themselves by justia.com, except for the second and third cases – Slaughterhouse Cases and Cruikshank – which demand more explanation. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion  and www.supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/due-process.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>The summaries of each case listed here are excerpted from the cases themselves by justia.com, except for the second and third cases – Slaughterhouse Cases and Cruikshank – which demand more explanation. See https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/religion  and www.supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/due-process.</small>
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Protecting Slave Owners.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Protecting Slave Owners.'''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). “An act of Congress that deprives a citizen of the United States [a slave owner] of his liberty or property [his slave] merely because he came or brought his property [his slave] into a particular territory of the United States [a state that outlawed slavery] could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' (1857). “An act of Congress that deprives a citizen of the United States [a slave owner] of his liberty or property [his slave] merely because he came or brought his property [his slave] into a particular territory of the United States [a state that outlawed slavery] could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Protecting the Ku Klux Klan.

@@ Line 661: / Line 661: @@
 <br>But SCOTUS says Congress can only enforce
 <br>rights that SCOTUS says are rights,
-<br>and to only the extent that SCOTUS permits.
+<br>and to only the extent that SCOTUS permits. </center>
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That history, supported by quotes from Justice Thomas and others, is summarized in the following Chapter 3, ‘Substantive Due Process’: how SCOTUS turned the Constitution’s Authority to Define Rights, and Congress’ 14th Amendment Authority to Enforce Rights, into its own authority to reclassify abominations as ‘rights’ ”.Or, “How SCOTUS morphed the Constitution’s end of racial tyranny into its own tool of judicial tyranny in only five years </center>
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That history, supported by quotes from Justice Thomas and others, is summarized in  ‘Substantive Due Process’: how SCOTUS turned the Constitution’s Authority to Define Rights, and Congress’ 14th Amendment Authority to Enforce Rights, into its own authority to reclassify abominations as ‘rights’ ”.Or, “How SCOTUS morphed the Constitution’s end of racial tyranny into its own tool of judicial tyranny in only five years."
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The 14th Amendment. Here is the 14th Amendment itself. Notice that Section One has four clauses. Lawyers refer to them by their key words: the “citizenship clause”, the “privileges and immunities” clause, the “due process” clause, and the “equal protection clause”. Each clause protects a distinct set of very important rights, over which judges and lawyers continually battle along with Section 5 which names Congress, not courts, as the enforcer of rights.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''The 14th Amendment'''. Here is the 14th Amendment itself. Notice that Section One has four clauses. Lawyers refer to them by their key words: the “''citizenship clause''”, the “''privileges and immunities''” clause, the “''due process''” clause, and the “''equal protection clause''”. Each clause protects a distinct set of very important rights, over which judges and lawyers continually battle along with Section 5 which names Congress, not courts, as the enforcer of rights.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Section 1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''The last 4 Clauses protect the Right to Live'''. The '''“Privileges and Immunities”''' clause protects unborn babies. The clause refers to every right listed (“enumerated”) in the Constitution, and the right to live is “enumerated” in the following '''“Due Process”''' clause, besides being the Number One “unalienable right” listed in the Declaration of Independence, which declares protection of that right to be the primary purpose of governments.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(Section 5) The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The '''“Equal Protection”''' clause protects unborn babies. A state deciding whether to let them live certainly exercises “jurisdiction” over them, so babies must have “equal protection” with judges – a baby’s life should have the same protection in law as the life of any judge.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The '''“Due Process”''' clause protects unborn babies. SCOTUS has extracted dozens of rights from that poor little clause, none of which are as “fundamental” as the right to live, which Dobbs v. Jackson refuses to protect from murder-driven voters.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The last 4 Clauses protect the Right to Live. The “Privileges and Immunities” clause protects unborn babies. The clause refers to every right listed (“enumerated”) in the Constitution, and the right to live is “enumerated” in the following “Due Process” clause, besides being the Number One “unalienable right” listed in the Declaration of Independence, which declares protection of that right to be the primary purpose of governments.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The “Congress shall have the '''power to enforce”''' clause protects unborn babies. Unlike mere Supreme Court justices who declared themselves less competent than doctors and preachers to understand whether a baby of humans is a genuine human, Congress figured it out in 2004.
 This protection needs to be pointed out in public and in court as part of stopping courts from grabbing rights-defining and -enforcing  authority from the “due process clause”.
 For now, here is a list of...

@@ Line 502: / Line 502: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And more important for today, did SCOTUS’ 1876 evasion of the 14th Amendment establish the same evasion that still drags America towards Hell a century and a half later?
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;My first excerpt from the case is the breathtaking logic described by Thomas as “the right to peaceably assemble codified in the First Amendment was not a privilege of United States citizenship because ‘[t]he right . . . existed long before the adoption of the Constitution.’ ”  Huh? Can you decipher that? Here is how Cruikshank literally said it:
-<blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Cruikshank Itself. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government.''' It “derives its source,” to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 211, “from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.” '''It is found wherever civilization exists.''' It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution.
+<blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Cruikshank Itself. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government.''' It “derives its source,” to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 211, “from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.” '''It is found wherever civilization exists.''' It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution.</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Let me see if I read that right: '''When Congress codifies a law of God, or an “unalienable right”, federal courts have no jurisdiction to enforce it because its origin is ancient!''' Never mind that the right to peaceably assemble is hardly universal in human governments, but is in fact historically rare!
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Do we have the stomach for another excerpt? Here we learn that while everyone who passed the 14th Amendment ''thought'' it empowered ''Congress'' to correct trampling of rights in states, no-ho, not so!

@@ Line 602: / Line 602: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;...our mainstream story has long featured the conflict between national power and states’ rights. The Supreme Court appears as a protector of state authority against national power in The Slaughter-House Cases and The Civil Rights Cases. Add Cruikshank, and those decisions slide to the periphery. It turns out that four of the most important interpretive issues raised by the Reconstruction Amendments were resolved in a case [Cruikshank] involving the exercise of national power in support of state governments struggling for survival against paramilitary insurrection.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Cruikshank rulings protected “state” jurisdiction only in the sense that, as argued by former Confederates and President Andrew Johnson, state authority was properly grounded not on the citizenry defined in the Fourteenth Amendment, but on the pre–Civil War (white) “people” of the state.  [That is, Cruikshank protected “state jurisdiction” redefined as the will of the pre-Civil War white people, not on the will of citizens as defined in the 14th Amendment.]
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp''';With regard to the three majority-black states, this reality was painfully apparent and could not have been overlooked in the Justices’ consideration of the issues. Far from protecting the rights of constitutionally sanctioned states, the Court blocked the national government from assisting official state governments in the preservation of law and order.'''
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''With regard to the three majority-black states, this reality was painfully apparent and could not have been overlooked in the Justices’ consideration of the issues. Far from protecting the rights of constitutionally sanctioned states, the Court blocked the national government from assisting official state governments in the preservation of law and order.'''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''...our received narrative spotlights the Supreme Court as protector of civil rights against the elected branches, a role in which it sometimes shines (Strauder v. West Virginia and Brown) and sometimes fails (Plessy and Korematsu v. United States).'''

@@ Line 497: / Line 497: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chief among those cases is '''United States v. Cruikshank,  92 U. S. 542 (1876). There, the Court held that members of a white militia who had brutally murdered as many as 165 black Louisianians congregating outside a courthouse had not deprived the victims of their privileges as American citizens to peaceably assemble or to keep and bear arms. Ibid.; see L. Keith, The Colfax Massacre 109 (2008). According to the Court, the right to peaceably assemble codified in the First Amendment was not a privilege of United States citizenship because “[t]he right . . . existed long before the adoption of the Constitution.” 92 U. S., at 551 (emphasis added). Similarly, the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms was not a privilege of United States citizenship because it was not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”''' Id., at 553.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In other words, the reason the Framers codified the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment—its nature as an inalienable right that pre-existed the Constitution’s adoption—was the very reason citizens could not enforce it against States through the Fourteenth.
-That circular reasoning effectively has been the Court’s last word on the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
+That circular reasoning effectively has been the Court’s last word on the Privileges or Immunities Clause.</blockquote>
 ----
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After reading Thomas’ synopsis of Cruikshank, I wanted to read the ruling itself. Had SCOTUS indeed acquired no more regard for blacks than they had in its 1857 ''Scott v. Sandford'' ruling that blacks are “property”? Did SCOTUS actually let off three leaders of a mass-murdering KKK mob? and only 10 years after the Civil War, and 7 years after the 14th Amendment “guaranteed” “equal protection of the laws” for blacks, after certifying all blacks as full citizens with full voting rights?

@@ Line 581: / Line 581: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;My conclusion is contrary to this Court’s precedents, which hold that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege of United States citizenship. ....
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This Court rejected the butchers’ claim, holding that their asserted right was not a privilege or immunity of American citizenship, but one governed by the States alone. The Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected only rights of federal citizenship—those “which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws,” id., at 79—and did not protect any of the rights of state citizenship, id., at 74. '''In other words, the Court defined the two sets of rights as mutually exclusive.'''
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After separating these two sets of rights, the Court defined the rights of state citizenship as “embrac[ing] nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted”—that is, all those rights listed in Corfield. 16 Wall., at 76 (referring to “those rights” that “Judge Washington” described). '''That left very few rights of federal citizenship for the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect.''' The Court suggested a handful of possibilities, such as the '''“right of free access to [federal] seaports,”''' protection of the Federal Government while traveling “on the high seas,” and even two rights listed in the Constitution. Id., at 79 (noting “[t]he right to peaceably assemble” and “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”);....
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After separating these two sets of rights, the Court defined the rights of state citizenship as “embrac[ing] nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted”—that is, all those rights listed in Corfield. 16 Wall., at 76 (referring to “those rights” that “Judge Washington” described). '''That left very few rights of federal citizenship for the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect.''' The Court suggested a handful of possibilities, such as the '''“right of free access to [federal] seaports,”''' protection of the Federal Government while traveling “on the high seas,” and even two rights listed in the Constitution. Id., at 79 (noting “[t]he right to peaceably assemble” and “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”);....</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''Cruikshank: next to Roe, Leader of Abomination Cases'''

@@ Line 457: / Line 457: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Perhaps that is enough background to explain this official summary of the ''McDonald'' defense:
-<blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, challenged a Chicago ordinance that required the registration of  [guns, with an annual fee, and surrender of guns if a payment was missed]....McDonald also offered the novel argument that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause should be allowed to apply the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, overturning the Court's 1873 decision in the Slaughter-House Case. This doctrinal shift would have allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied directly to non-federal governments without the need for incorporation. It could have had an impact on other parts of the Bill of Rights to which incorporation had not yet been applied.</blockquote>
+<blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, challenged a Chicago ordinance that required the registration of  [guns, with an annual fee, and surrender of guns if a payment was missed]....McDonald also offered the novel argument that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause should be allowed to apply the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, overturning the Court's 1873 decision in the Slaughter-House Case. This doctrinal shift would have allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied directly to non-federal governments without the need for incorporation. It could have had an impact on other parts of the Bill of Rights to which incorporation had not yet been applied.</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Before we go to Justice Thomas’ excerpts, let’s look at that official holding one more time, untranslated:
 <blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Issue: Whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the application of the Bill of Rights in its entirety to state and local governments.

@@ Line 418: / Line 418: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In describing these rights, Howard explained that they included '''“the privileges and immunities spoken of”''' in Article IV, §2. Id., at 2765. Although he did not catalogue the precise “nature” or “extent” of those rights, he thought “Corfield v. Coryell” provided a useful description. Howard then submitted that “[t]o these '''privileges and immunities,''' whatever they may be— . . . should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, [and] . . . the right to keep and to bear arms.” Ibid. (emphasis added). </blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[Thomas selectively lists “the right to bear arms” in this case because this 2010 precedent is where SCOTUS ''finally'' jettisons ''Cruikshank’s'' holding that the Amendment does not require states to honor their citizens’ right to carry guns. Thomas still objects because this precedent still doesn’t jettison the notion that SCOTUS gets to decide which of the Constitution’s listed rights it will protect. Thomas continues:]
-<blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;News of Howard’s speech was carried in major newspapers across the country, including the New York Herald, see N. Y. Herald, May 24, 1866, p. 1, which was the best-selling paper in the Nation at that time,...
+<blockquote><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;News of Howard’s speech was carried in major newspapers across the country, including the New York Herald, see N. Y. Herald, May 24, 1866, p. 1, which was the best-selling paper in the Nation at that time,...</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;N. Y. Times, May 24, 1866, p. 1. The following day’s Times editorialized on Howard’s speech, predicting that '''“[t]o this, the first section of the amendment, the Union party throughout the country will yield a ready acquiescence, and the South could offer no justifiable resistance,”''' suggesting that Bingham’s narrower second draft had not been met with the same objections that Hale had raised against the first. N. Y. Times, May 25, 1866, p. 4.
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As a whole, these well-circulated speeches indicate that §1 was understood to enforce constitutionally declared rights against the States, and '''they provide no suggestion that any language in the section other than the Privileges or Immunities Clause would accomplish that task....''' [courts were never authorized to swap the constitution’s list of rights for its own].