A moment of silence for the first amendment

Because they don't. The list is available and as for New Jersey I used to live there - they do not have a firearms ownership provision in their Constitution. You look it up if you don't believe me.

The 14th Amendment was written to give citizenship to the newly freed slaves, it has no bearing on the other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land and every state in the union has to abide by it's provisions - period!

Look, I never said that the 14th Amendment was the vehicle to allow gay marriage or abortion, that was a court decision. Marriage, gay or otherwise is not mentioned in the Federal Constitution, therefore it is for the individual states to decide. It's the same thing with abortion, it should be a state decision.

I do not know why you are so stubborn about this, the facts are the facts and the truth is the truth. But I will leave you to your little fantasy of believing that any state in the union can somehow deny you the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, even if said rights are not mentioned in a particular state's constitution.

Free speech, the freedom to worship, firearms ownership etc. are things that no state can deny it's citizens because all have signed on to the Federal compact. End of story.

 

You keep saying that, but did you ever address my question regarding the wording of the 14th Amendment? Specifically what are the privileges and immunities of US citizens it references?

"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."

 

Thanks for touting the US Constitution. It would be great if that touting were accompanied by an understanding of how it applies. Unfortunately, all we see you post are TDS driven comments and progressive leftist talking points aimed at undermining the US. Pushing the highly divisive, deceptive narrative of the MSM as if it is the truth is disgraceful and an affront to the American heritage. How about you refrain from advocating derailing our nation through undermining its heritage?

 

The State of Iowa for example cannot make a law that takes away your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Such a law would be found unconstitutional and the decision would be binding on every other state.

The citizen is immune from an illegal search or seizure as per the U.S. Constitution.

 

I am not being stubborn. We have a difference of opinion, and I believe you are incorrect. I suggest you read what was said and written back when the 14th Amendment was being debated after the Civil War.

 

Yes, that's what I would expect the wording to indicate, and it seems readily interpreted that way. And further, it specifies both immunities and privileges.

I asked KH this Q once before, but did not notice any response, which made me think he doesn't have a good, plausible answer that would support his own position.

 

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the states in the defeated CSA could not treat the freed slaves differently than other citizens. Read what was being debated during the 14th Amendment’s adoption.

 

I'm interested in the specific wording and what it refers to. Please list the privileges and immunities of US citizens. Where are they delineated? If you have no answer, you have no opinion, only what you feel about it, that is, emotion.

 

We agree on what the 14th Amendment says, that it was written so that the newly freed slaves were not to be denied their rightful American citizenship. But that has nothing to do with the other rights in the Federal Constitution which are binding on every state in the union.

Another example would be the "Miranda" ruling. That was the case where the man whose last name was Miranda had not been informed of his constitutional rights upon being arrested and the Supreme Court ruled that he should have been advised of his rights. That ruling became binding on every law enforcement officer in every state in the union and it is now standard procedure upon a persons arrest.

So I am not incorrect, every right in the Federal Constitution is to be respected by every state in the union. This is an unarguable fact and truth. Good grief, do I have to bring up the Heller decision again?

 

Those "small number" of lawbreakers are sure causing a lot of mayhem and destruction- including death. Now, if only those weak Democrat leaders of those states and cities would do their job, there would be no need for any Federal intervention.

Another thing that you and General Mattis seem to miss (or desire to ignore) is the anti - government groups like ANTIFA who are a big part of all the unrest. Bricks are being placed in strategic locations and ANTIFA is basically following military protocol in having scouts, medical personal, and infantry fighters. This is fact as evidenced by the report of the New York City police intelligence unit.

Now, as regards former Defense Seccretary Mattis and President Trump. Mr. Mattis has no authority and wasn't elected to anything - he is irrelevant.

 

Good grief, HE NEVER STOPPED THOSE PEOPLE FROM PROTESTING AND THEY WERE NOT ARRESTED. They were simply moved to another area so the President could go to the church. The security of the President of the United States demanded such a thing be done.

By the way, did you see the video of the Australian TV crew being attacked by BLM members in London? Just some more "peaceful protesting" going on I guess. The other videos I have seen from England have been just as disturbing, with cops kneeling (submitting) to the mob, and then cops being chased and attacked by "protestors". Nice, huh?

 

Ah. There it is. I do not accept that just because the SCOTUS rules a certain way makes them correct. We have to respect it per our system of government, but that doesn’t mean they ruled correctly.

I suggest you read the article linked below. Other than that, I don’t know what else I can do for you. Have a good day.

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | | Tenth Amendment Center

 

Here ya go:

“The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship that cannot be unreasonably abridged by state laws include the right to travel from state to state; the right to vote for federal officeholders; the right to enter public lands; the right to petition Congress to redress grievances; the right to inform the national government of a violation of its laws; the right to receive protection from violence when in federal custody; the right to have free access to U.S. seaports; the right to transact business with and engage in administering the functions of the U.S. government; the right to have access to federal courts; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”

Privileges and Immunities

That’s all I know to do for you. Have a good day.

 

So what

 

So what