McDonald v. Chicago and the 2nd, Utah and Eminent Domain, and AG Holder

by Phil on 03/2/2010

The Supreme Court is currently examining a case concerning four Chicago residents who are suing the city of Chicago over its ban on handgun possession. While I have links to this and other stories at News.TheRightSideOfLife.com, this one deserves a special mention for the case’s background: ChicagoGunCase.com.

So what’s important about this case for the rest of us? It has direct relation to what’s otherwise known as the “Incorporation” doctrine. That is, the question becomes: “Which part(s) of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights apply not only to the federal but also the State and/or local level(s)?” Should SCOTUS rule in favor of those who defend 2nd Amendment rights — as SCOTUSBlog analyzes — this would be the second time that the High Court would strike down lower Court rulings.

Then there’s the great State of Utah (reported by The Los Angeles Times, no less) whose House has passed a bill that would enabled the State to exercise eminent domain on certain segments of federalized land against the wishes of the federal government. And one of those has to do with oil and gas exploration. This move would surely ultimately end up in the Courts, exactly where many of us would love to see it go.

Also, speaking of States’ rights, the great State of Wyoming becomes the latest State to pass a version of the Firearms Freedom Act, the point of which is to “defy” federal gun laws for all weapons and ammunition that are produced intra-State (i.e.: within the bounds of the State). I have a link on my News page to TenthAmendmentCenter.com’s page tracking all States who have either introduced or passed similar bills. Once again, expect these legislative maneuvers to be litigated.

And the latest on the US DoJ, where the AG has appointed 9 Muslim terrorist-sympathizing attorneys, only two of whom he’s willing to discuss. As KeepAmericaSafe.com asks, “Who Are The Al Qaeda 7???”

-Phil

News.TheRightSideOfLife.com -=- Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

There are 12 comments in this article:

  1. 03/3/2010Sue says:

    http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_supremacy_clause_in_the_us_constitution
    The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution
    Article VI and Why Federal Law Overrules State Law

  2. 03/3/2010Phil says:

    http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_supremacy_clause_in_the_us_constitution
    The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution
    Article VI and Why Federal Law Overrules State Law

    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/selective-reading-of-the-constitution/
    Selective Reading Of The Constitution

    One favored method of dismissing the sovereignty of state governments is to quote the Supremacy Clause, saying that since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that state laws are necessarily subordinate to federal law. The only problem with this reading is that they fail to read the entire Supremacy Clause.

    To remedy this I will paste the Supremacy Clause into this post here. “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.“

    According to my reading of this clause, only the laws which are made in pursuance of the Constitution are supreme, therefore, unconstitutional laws (which nullification laws are enacted to repeal) are not supreme- and in my view are illegal to pass at all.

    CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

    Tim Reeves is the State Coordinator for the Oregon Tenth Amendment Center.

  3. 03/4/2010Sue says:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/78254/justice-department-smacks-cheneyites-over-al-qaeda-smear-campaign

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/justice-department-on-so-called-al-qaeda-seven-we-will-not-participate-in-an-attempt-to-drag-peoples-names-through.html

  4. 03/4/2010Sue says:

    http://wolves.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/federal-land-grab-myth-endures-in-utah/
    “Federal ‘land grab’ myth endures in Utah
    June 24, 2009 — Ralph Maughan
    The western states never owned the U.S. public lands (federal lands) inside their boundaries-
    One of the the oldest myths perpetrated in rural areas of the public land states is that the national forests, parks, and BLM lands somehow at some time belonged to the state, and these lands were somehow wrested into federal ownership.

    The function of the myth is mostly to provide a rationale for ignoring the law and the wishes of people from outside the area. It is actively perpetrated by development and livestock interests who don’t like federal decisions (they are silent about all this when they do like federal decisions).

    When I taught the course “Public Land Politics,” I always spent about two weeks on the origin and history of the public lands, so that those who had absorbed this myth would have the history and laws to see what actually did and did not transpire.”

  5. 03/4/2010Sue says:

    http://dailyme.com/story/2010030300002221/utah-move-seize-federal-land.html
    “In Utah, a move to seize federal landLOS ANGELES TIMES | BY NICHOLAS RICCARDI | Wed, Mar 3, 8:12 AM
    excerpts
    Legal experts contend that the federal government is under no obligation to sell its land in Utah and that no state could ever successfully seize federal property. “It flies in the face of history and is also inconsistent as a point of law,” said Bob Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah.

    Keiter and others argue that the move illustrates a pattern in recent Western history — a conservative backlash to the election of a Democratic president. After Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, the movement known as the Sagebrush Rebellion helped lock up the West for the GOP and put Ronald Reagan into the White House.

    President Bill Clinton faced a similar backlash in the 1990s, aggravated by his creation before the 1996 presidential election of Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument.

    “Utah has this history of grand conservation gains,” Groene said. “Every time it happens it triggers this anger. And 20 years later we always look back and agree that conservation was a wise idea.””

  6. 03/4/2010Sue says:

    “Since writing my article on this yesterday, I’ve received some comments indicating that the purpose of Cheney’s advertisement was to get the names of these lawyers so that a determination could be made as to whether or not they belong in the Justice Department. …

    [Please post comments only with complete links, thankyouverymuch]

  7. 03/6/2010Sue says:

    Jim DeMint and the other Republicans involved is this are playing politics, nothing more.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/23/839514/-Hike-On!-Tarring-Obama-for-a-federal-land-grab-that-wasnt

  8. 03/6/2010Phil says:

    Sue,

    Jim DeMint and the other Republicans involved is this are playing politics, nothing more.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/23/839514/-Hike-On!-Tarring-Obama-for-a-federal-land-grab-that-wasnt

    Noting the obvious extreme, radical statism of the site to which you refer (I’m sure there are no politics involved on that site, huh?), here’s a ***SHOCKER!!!!*** for you:

    Sen. Jim DeMint is a Senator! That means he’s a federal officer of the Legislative branch, which means he is a *political* figure.

    I knew you were obtuse but this is a bit much, even for you.

    -Phil

  9. 03/6/2010Sue says:

    “Sen. Jim DeMint is a Senator! That means he’s a federal officer of the Legislative branch, which means he is a *political* figure.

    I knew you were obtuse but this is a bit much, even for you.”

    Now who is being obtuse?

  10. 03/6/2010Phil says:

    Sue,

    “Sen. Jim DeMint is a Senator! That means he’s a federal officer of the Legislative branch, which means he is a *political* figure.

    I knew you were obtuse but this is a bit much, even for you.”

    Now who is being obtuse?

    You really do need things spelled out for you, don’t you?

    The above comment was meant for you.

    -Phil

  11. 03/7/2010Sue says:

    “The above comment was meant for you.”

    And, for what purpose? Did being rude or sarcastic improve your comment? I am well aware that Senator DeMint is a Senator.

  12. 03/7/2010MGB says:

    Here’s a first: I tentatively agree with Sue about the issue of public lands, owned by the federal government, pending further research. These lands may exist within the boundaries of a state, but they don’t belong to that state. For a state to seize land from the federal government would be no different than the federal government seizing private lands.

    This is not to say that I agree with the land grab. Putting those lands off limits to energy exploration is the goal of this administration. These are the lands where resources lie that could make the US energy independent for years to come. That’s NOT a goal of this administration, despite whatever lip service they pay to energy independence or to saving endangered species.

    Environmentalism and conservation are the excuses they use to bring about their goal of preventing the USA from using the resources that belong to the USA to remove us from under the thumb of OPEC.

    Or perhaps they’re setting them aside because those resources will be needed to pay China back for funding our enormous debt. Who will need oil in the future to sustain their economic growth? China.

    They aren’t setting this land aside for the USA. They’re doing it to further their socialist agenda.

    Maybe they’re reserving it for Van-Jones-style reparations: “Give them the land!”

    Maybe it’s all of the above. Whatever it is, there’s an agenda and it’s not one that will be transparent to the public until it’s possibly too late.

    As for SCOTUS: If they rule that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to states, then what other amendments will no longer apply? Free speech? Free press? Civil rights? I see no way they can rule that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to states.