ScotusWiki publishes oral arguments for McDonald v. Chicago.

The ScotusWiki has published a PDF of the oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. The 78-page document contains the argument of the petitioners and the questions asked by the justices of the Supreme Court.

The court trying to determine if the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the Second Amendment to the States. It is clear by a simple understanding of the English language and American history that it has been “incorporated” to the States by the Constitution itself. It is further clear, by an cursory examination of the documents used to support the passage of the Constitution—Particularly Federalist Paper No. 29, that there was to be no restrictions placed on the ownership of firearms, or weapons of any sort. They either are graduates from very poor law schools, or are willfully ignorant of that fact.

The final decision has not been handed down, but you can bet that the government is eagerly awaiting that decision to find ways to twist the decision as Sonya Sotomeyer did in a case on this very subject following D.C. v. Heller.

Sonya Sotomeyer asked, “What is it that has –has been caused by it that we have to remedy? Meaning States have relied on having no grand juries (violation of the Fifth Amendment); States have relied on not having civil trials in certain money cases (violation of the Seventh Amendment); they have relied on regulating the use of firearms based on us, the Court, not incorporating the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the way that you identify it.” Meaning the States have depended on us letting them trample on all of the Bill of Rights in the past. Why should we fix what ain’t broke?

The correct answer given by Mr. Alan Gura of Alexandria, VA, arguing the case for the Second Amendment was,”Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.”

If the court decides that the the Bill of Rights to the Constitution are not “incorporated” to the States, the States will then be able to trample over your rights unimpeded. The Supreme Court has already decided that the government can trample over your Fourth Amendment rights. Adding (or incorporating) the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, to the Constitution was the only way that it would pass. And everyone knew what they meant—unless, of course, you are native to some island in the Caribbean. And the founding fathers did not intend for them to be “modernized” to comply with our industrial age. Rather, it was the reverse.

Who incorporated the Second Amendment?

This entry was posted in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Ninth Amendment, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, Tenth Amendment and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s