Today in Supreme Court History: April 18, 1775

4/18/1775: Paul Revere's ride.

Comments

[Martinned2]

What does that have to do with the Supreme Court?

[Jumaira]

Not much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

2nd Amd?

[not guilty]

The Second Amendment came 14 years later.

[Armchair]

Sigh...

In many ways, Paul Revere's Ride was part of the rationale for the second amendment. Specifically the part about the British coming to seize the colonists weapons and firearms.

The fact that an unjust government just attempted to seize the firearms of the people prompted the rationale to need to protect those rights, in writing.

In a world in which the British didn't try to seize the firearms of the colonists, the 2nd amendment may not exist. In a world in which the British didn't quarter soldiers in the homes of the colonists, the 3rd amendment may not exist. History, and the actions taken, prompted the writing of many of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

[Martinned2]

The fact that an unjust government just attempted to seize the firearms

Well, that sort of begs the question. As far as I can tell what happened is that the legitimate government of the colonies tried to stop some rich white guys rebelling. Taking away people's weapons seems like a sensible part of that. Or are governments not allowed to resist rebellion?

The 2nd amendment exists because the colonists were fanboying the Glorious Revolution, which also came with a Bill of Rights, and because the colonists, having just overthrown their lawful government, couldn't very well deny that others in the future had the same right.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

What a statist attitude! Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometimes, not just skimming it.

[Krychek_2]

The practical problem, which I have never heard addressed by the gun lobby, is that there are plenty of people the government really does need to have superior weaponry over: Organized crime and terrorist organizations, just to name two. School shooters for another.

Now, I like the idea of an armed citizenry being able to stand up to tyranny as much as the next person, but if the citizenry has the ability to resist the government, so will Al Capone. So how do you ensure that Paul Revere has the means to resist but Al Capone doesn't?

[apedad]

Well that's THE problem.

A law-abiding citizen carrying a legal weapon is a law-abiding citizen carrying a legal weapon - right up to the second they're not a law-abiding citizen.

[Krychek_2]

I'm more concerned with criminal organizations that are well known not to be law abiding citizens but whose individual members continue to have Second Amendment rights until they've been convicted of something. There have been cases in which organized gangs were able to successfully out-gun the police because they had better weapons.

The government isn't always the bad guys. When it's protecting me (or trying to) from organized violent criminals, I want it to be better armed than they are.

[apedad]

' . . . until they’ve been convicted of something."

That's a feature not a bug in our system WHILE also agreeing that we need better red flag laws (and YES with a strong process for a person to fight against a red flag against them).

" . . . successfully out-gun the police because they had better weapons."

1. Tightly restrict access to certain types of weapons (not a 2A issue and we as a society need to do better).
2. Ensure police are appropriately equipped AND TRAINED while also not going overboard (see link about the federal program to send excess DoD property to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies).

https://www.dla.mil/Disposition-Services/Offers/Law-Enforcement/Program-FAQs/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Paul Revere WAS Al Capone -- Revere was a notorious smuggler.

He also got caught -- it was Dr. Prescott, from Concord and who knew the back roads, who actually got through to Concord.

And the British confiscated a brass cannon in Concord.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but if the citizenry has the ability to resist the government, so will Al Capone."

Because Al Capone is as numerous as the people? You're considering only the quality of the arms, and not the number of people bearing them.

In the US, the criminals are a small minority of the population. They could be dealt with even if the 2nd amendment was still being treated as a right to be armed in the same manner as soldiers; Al Capone DID have machine guns, how did that end?

The armed populace matters not just because they're armed, but because they outnumber any force the government could assemble. And if so many people are revolting that the government can't beat them back, isn't that an indication that maybe, just maybe, the government is actually in the wrong?

The reason for gun control isn't a concern about criminals preying on the citizenry. It's the government concerned about its own safety if it pisses off too many people.

[apedad]

" . . . but because they outnumber any force the government could assemble."

But they DON'T have:

Command
Control
(Secure) Communications
(Secure) Computer networks
Intelligence
Surveillance and Reconnaissance platforms (and training analysts)
Logistics chains
FUNDS (their bank accounts would be closed)
Medical infrastructure
Advanced weapons
Control of multiple platforms (air, land, sea/rivers)
Vetting/recruiting process (spies would be easily introduced)

And all the other features of a modern military.

Your "numbers" would be easily destroyed.

[apedad]

AND!

We’d be fighting on our own turf so the geo-political factors that help prevent us from invasion, i.e., Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and Canada and Mexico, would also prevent a foreign power from assisting any insurrection.

AND would also prevent escape.

Face it, you guys are doomed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Your “numbers” would be easily destroyed."

Just like the Viet Cong and Taliban.

You are assuming the existing military would be 100% on your side. Fatal assumption.

[apedad]

Go ahead and start something, and we'll see which one of us is right.

(Hint, it won't be you.)

[Kazinski]

Not at all, it isn't the threat of superior weaponry by authorities that made America governable, but the law abiding nature of its armed citizenry ready to assist lawful authority, that made America governable.

Law enforcement doesn't out gun it's local citizens, it never has. As the Younger gang found out in Northfield, an armed citizenry provides the backup and superior firepower to assist authorities.

Sure the criminals can out gun authorities temporarily, and have, but it always ends badly, and there's your deterence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Organized crime"

NYC has the Sullivan Law which requires licensing and sharply limits legal gun ownership. NYC famously had no armed organized crime.

Face it, you are the person Paul rode to warn about.

[Martinned2]

NYC also famously has lots of bridges that connect it to places where anyone with a pulse can buy a guy. Doing gun control for a single city is utterly pointless, and predictably so for anyone who thinks about it for more than two seconds.

[Martinned2]

Reading it? My ancestors wrote it two hundred years before!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration

And, once you read past the propaganda, what your Declaration of Independence says is that the colonists are upset because they have to pay taxes, are subject to the same laws as all other subjects of the Crown, and can’t steal as much indigenous people’s land as they would like.

[Bob from Ohio]

Least we had reasons. Your revolt was over nothing, once you read past the propaganda.

[Kazinski]

Middle class white guys the rich white guys in England had decided to mulct and otherwise exploit for their own benefit.

And sure governments are allowed to resist rebellion. The colonists of course were illegitimate upstarts, until suddenly the were legitimate starts.

I'm sure the English understood, at Lexington the colonists were "thus", at Yorktown they became "safely thus", and no longer colonists.

[SMP0328]

Well, that sort of begs the question. As far as I can tell what happened is that the legitimate government of the colonies tried to stop some rich white guys rebelling. Taking away people’s weapons seems like a sensible part of that. Or are governments not allowed to resist rebellion?

The 2nd amendment exists because the colonists were fanboying the Glorious Revolution, which also came with a Bill of Rights, and because the colonists, having just overthrown their lawful government, couldn’t very well deny that others in the future had the same right.

Were any of your ancestors Loyalists? You sound like one of them. As for "rich white guys," they were on both sides (e.g., the British generals).

[Martinned2]

True, but only one side was motivated by “we would like to pay less taxes”.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Were any of your ancestors Loyalists?

Worse. He’s European.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

The Second Amendment gives substance to the Third Amendment, and especially to the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
(2) The once proud boast that “An Englishman’s home is his castle” is a quaint relic in its country of origin, but remains in effect here (except when we let Drug Warriors get out of hand).

[Martinned2]

The Second Amendment gives substance to the Third Amendment, and especially to the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Go ahead, shoot at the police when they turn up with an unlawful warrant (or no warrant) and see where that gets you.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

I had in mind burglars and other criminals, whose searches and seizures are by definition "unreasonable."

[Martinned2]

Burglars and other criminals aren't bound by the 4th amendment, because (typically) they are not there on behalf of the government. So the existence of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th amendment makes no difference to them.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

American burglars take considerable pains to avoid owner-occupied homes, because they know that the Second Amendment influences the likely behavior of the owners. Break-ins of occupied American homes are rare enough to be written up in the newspapers as "home invasions." When they do happen, "home invasions" tend to be in poor or immigrant communities without gun rights or awareness.

[wolfefan]

Perhaps Revere was the first Sovereign Citizen, a Freeman Traveling on the Roads.

[Michael P]

Neither Paul Revere nor the Supreme Court have ever been in my kitchen.

[Bwaaah]

The connection! It's like a unified theory of everything (except your kitchen).

[Bob from Ohio]

No Revere Ware?

[Dilan Esper]

Paul Revere and the Raiders' "Indian Reservation" is on Justice Gorsuch's Spotify playlist.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (decided April 18, 1960): record of competency hearing too sparse to evaluate; conviction (for kidnaping girl and transporting her across state lines) vacated and new competency hearing ordered prior to new trial (no Double Jeopardy, apparently) (the psychiatric report, in 271 F.2d 385, seems complete to me and opines that he doesn’t understand the nature of the proceedings)

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (decided April 18, 1921): Act of Congress as to District of Columbia restricting conditions for eviction was exercise of police power and not a “taking” requiring compensation due to wartime housing shortage as declared by Congress (“a declaration by a legislature concerning public conditions that by necessity and duty it must know, is entitled at least to great respect”)

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (decided April 18, 2017): trial court’s sanctions against party for bad-faith litigation conduct is limited to award of legal costs; lawsuit was not “permeated” by refusal to produce test results re: allegedly defective tire

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (decided April 18, 2012): only individuals, not nations or organizations, can be held liable under the Torture Victim Prevention Act (dismissing suit against Palestinian Authority, Israel, and the PLO for torture and murder of family members)

New York v. New Jersey, 598 U.S. 218 (decided April 18, 2023): New Jersey can secede (my term!) from compact with New York; compact is a contract and with no terms dealing with termination or withdrawal, usual at-will rule applies (this is the Waterfront Commission Compact, formed in 1951 to deal with corruption, but by now almost all the waterfront activity is on the New Jersey side)

Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (decided April 18, 2012): Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence apply to patent suits; federal court can be presented with evidence not presented before Board of Patent Appeals (the applicant, who was trying to patent his “Improved Memory Architecture” software, had forgotten to submit it to the Board — ha!)

Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (decided April 18, 2001): issue of fact whether redistricting was due to race (not o.k.) or political gerrymandering (o.k.)

Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (decided April 18, 1995): liability under Fair Debt Collection Act extends to collection lawyers, even after they bring suit (here, the infraction seems minor; in notifying defaulting car buyer of amount owed lawyer cited wrong cost of insurance bank had to obtain)

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (decided April 18, 1995): violation of separation of powers for Congress to require courts to reopen (actually one should just say “open”) final judgments (here, as to securities fraud suits dismissed under prior version of §10(b))

Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (decided April 18, 1966): striking down loyalty oath on Free Association grounds because one can belong to a subversive organization for non-subversive reasons (e.g., membership in Soviet scientific society)

Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (decided April 18, 1966): right to trial violated when counsel (not the defendant himself) agreed to guilty verdict if “prima facie” case made out by prosecution and no objection to damaging hearsay

[Dilan Esper]

(no Double Jeopardy, apparently)

Isn't a competency hearing a precondition of trial just like being in the right venue is? A reversal based on improper venue or lack of SMJ doesn't raise a double jeopardy issue; it isn't surprising to me that a reversal based on an improper competency finding wouldn't either.

[apedad]

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc, brings up a statute of limitations question (IANAL).

Does SoL time begin when the crime occurs or when the crime is detected (with the understanding that some crimes, e.g., murder have no SoL)?

So if someone commits fraud on 1 Jan 2024, but the fraud isn't detected until 1 Jan 2028, and the SoL is three years, could someone still bring a suit against the suspect?

[Michael P]

It can be either of those, or from the when the injury would have been discovered assuming reasonable efforts, according to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute_of_limitations . My (non-lawyer's) sense is that usually it starts from the date of the crime or injury, but tolling of the time/statute is an important consideration.

[Krayt]

ThOT is missing.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

"Listen, my children, and give pause,
While I tell you of the ride of William Dawes..."

[Dan Schiavetta]

He did more riding than Revere did that day. I suppose his silver candlesticks weren’t as good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yesterday in SC history:
Chuck the Shmuck Shumer and 50 fellow Dem became a new branch of government; The Supreme Supreme Court, deciding that the articles of impeachment against the DHS Sec. were unconstitutional.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Americans' elected representatives voted. The clingers lost.

USA!

[Martinned2]

That's a curious complaint. Are you of the view that the legislative and executive branches have no independent duty to follow the constitution?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Are you of the view that the legislative and executive branches have no independent duty to follow the constitution?"
Is that what I said?

[Martinned2]

Yes, except less coherently.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly. Almost every elected or appointed official and all members of the military swear fealty to the Constitution but not the right to decide what is Constitutional.

[Michael Resanovic]

Uhhh... that's not how it works.

Though to be fair, many other people don't understand this, either.

If you have duties, you have to figure out what you are supposed to do. Legislators have to figure out what they may pass, courts have to figure out how the law decides a case, executive officers have to figure out what actions are required of them etc.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We love judicial supremacy!

[David Nieporent]

Chuck the Shmuck Shumer and 50 fellow Dem became a new branch of government; The Supreme Supreme Court, deciding that the articles of impeachment against the DHS Sec. were unconstitutional.

No, that's just the senate performing the constitutional role of the senate. The judiciary has no say in the matter.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to TRY all Impeachments. "
Article 1 clause 6.
Where is the mention of the authority to declare the charges of the articles of impeachment unconstitutional?

[apedad]

Where did the Senate say the charges of the articles of impeachment were unconstitutional?

How about NOWHERE.

They simply stated the charges did not meet the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Mr. Bumble]

"They simply stated the charges did not meet the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors."
...and thus were unconstitutional.
"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) then moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that they are not constitutional."
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/17/senate-dismisses-historic-impeachment-mayorkas-border-immigration