Chicago gun case could restore other civil rights

[-..__...]

It's going to be very interesting come Tuesday when the SCOTUS hears this case.

This could very well be biggest and most important case of the last 50 years...

Gun owners aren't the only ones who should pay close attention to the "McDonald" Chicago gun-ban case, which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court March 2. If properly decided, the case could restore an important legal tool to protect the rights of small business owners and homeowners who face oppressive state and local government regulations.

Because the Supreme Court in McDonald may consider reinvigorating what is known as the "Privileges or Immunities clause" of the 14th Amendment, those engaged in civil rights battles nationwide may soon have a new arrow in their quiver to better defend the rights of homeowners and entrepreneurs. The clause states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The phrase "privileges or immunities" may be unfamiliar today, but 19th-century Americans used it interchangeably with a term modern Americans know very well: rights.

McDonald presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally embrace the true purpose of the 14th Amendment -- something the court hasn't done in more than 150 years. Restoring the Privileges or Immunities clause to its proper role would result in the protection not only of armed self-defense, but other vital civil rights such as economic liberty, which includes the rights to own property, enter into contracts and earn an honest living.

Complete article

[spin]

1. It's a more important case than I thought ...

and I had considered it a landmark case. Thanks for the link.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Absolutly...

Their are many that fail to see the "big picture" of using specious arguments against a recognized civil right has the potential to do to OTHER civil rights.. for example, adding qualifiers, like "needs". as in "Who NEEDS that kind of gun?" Well, who NEEDS that kind of newspaper???

A great tid bit in that article..

After the Civil War, officials throughout the South systematically violated the rights of newly freed blacks and white abolitionists in their states and sought to keep them in abject poverty and terror. The whole point in amending the Constitution to add the 14th Amendment -- with its Privileges or Immunities clause -- was to end the pervasive culture of oppression and tyranny by state and local governments, thereby protecting through federal law those rights that are necessary to be a full and self-sustaining member of society.

Two rights the 14th Amendment was clearly intended to protect were armed self-defense and economic liberty. A federal constitutional amendment was passed to ensure that all Americans, regardless of which state they lived in, enjoyed these rights.

[slackmaster]

3. Your friendly state and local tinpot authoritarians are quaking in their jackboots

:hi:

[onehandle]

4. What can't gun rights do?

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya...

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya...

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya...

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

O Lord Kumbaya

[gorfle]

6. There's not much that can stand up to force.

For good or ill.

[proteus_lives]

9. Sorry, you can't take them away.

We know how sad that makes you.

[old mark]

5. I hope the fallout from this might help negate some of the evil of the

"Patriot" Act...restore the freedoms that were taken by the Bush gang, and just continued by....the Democrats.

Even if you hate my guns, I hope you want your rights as Americans under our Constitution.

You don't have them all now.

mark

[oneshooter]

8. OBama recently signed a bill, the "Patriot Act" is good for another year. n/t

[old mark]

10. I know - I am hoping some of its may be found unconstitutional. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Thomas is the only one eager to overturn Slaughterhouse.

The others will not want to upset too much already settled law that has decended from that decision.

I predict a 5-4 vote for incorporation via "due process".

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/blog/2009/11/how-many-votes-to-overrule.html

[SteveM]

11. Good article! A relatively minor complaint, though...

"The phrase 'privileges or immunities' may be unfamiliar today, but 19th-century Americans used it interchangeably with a term modern Americans know very well: rights."

Civil rights attorneys throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s were quite familiar with the clause as it provided the bulwark for vital civil rights legislation and court rulings during the Civil Rights era. When I taught college-level political science, the 14th Amendment was central to my instruction: one could not understand these cases and laws, nor the very workings of federalism, without understanding the 14th.