Talk:United States v. Cruikshank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Presser?

I'm not a legal scholar, so I don't understand the reference to "Presser" near the end of this article. Is this case referred to as Presser v. Cruikshank or something along those lines? Or is Presser a different case that's related to this one? fsufezzik 18:22, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone had a slip of the synapse, since corrected. Anyway, Presser v. Illinois (116 U.S. 252 [1886]) challenged a ban on parading a privately-formed, armed group on public streets. —Tamfang 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlooked Authority

It is problematic that the US Supreme Court held that the A2A did not bind state authority, since the US Congress had previously gone to great trouble to ensure that it would do exactly that via the A14A (14th Amendment).

In 1866, the original sponsor of the bill for what would become known as the A14A, a Rep. John Bingham of OH, explained that the purpose of the bill was to enable the US Congress to enforce all of the "immunities and privileges" contained within the body and Bill of Rights of the US Constitution against state action. He did not exclude the A2A.

Over in the Senate, his colleage Sen. Jacob Howard agreed, and actually went further by explicitly stating that the purpose of the A14A was, in part, to incorporate the right to bear arms against state action. There is no record of any Congressman or state legislator reading a different intent into the amendment at the time.

And in 1871, as the Congress was taking up its first civil rights legislation under the authority of the A14A, Rep. Bingham, still in Congress, was asked to once again explain the meaning of the amendment. He likewise explicitly stated that the A14A extended the A2A against state action. Again, no one is recorded as having dissented with that explanation at the time.

Therefore, it is troublesome that the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the A2A does not apply to the states, beginning in 1875 with the Cruikshank case. It is as if the Court completely overlooked the repeatedly, clearly stated original intent of the A14A by the men who drafted, deliberated, and delivered it. --BEAST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.241.149 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC).