[ale] Drifting OT: Re: I have fallen in love with Truecrypt

[Damon L. Chesser]

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 14:31 -0500, Michael B. Trausch wrote: 
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 14:15 -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:04 -0500, Michael B. Trausch wrote: 
> > > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 11:48 -0500, David Tomaschik wrote:
> > > > (Oh yeah, and I have this crazy notion that the 1st, 4th, and 5th
> > > > amendments -- among others -- still apply to me.) 
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > +1
> > > +1
> > > +1
> > > +10000000000
> > > +eleventyone!!1!1!1!11!
> > > 
> > 
> > I agree.  I am not doing anything illegal, but you can not search my
> > property with out a warrant.  However, I am confused by GA law.
> > http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/ states that in Brewer v. State
> > The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia declares that the
> > protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States
> > Constitution do not apply to Georgia.
> > 
> > This confuses me.  The Bill of Rights are rights of The People, not
> > the States.  Does Ga. have the right to limit religion or speech or
> > search?
> 
> I think that if such a case fell before SCOTUS, they'd have something
> quite different to say about that.  States are not technically allowed
> to contradict laws at the Federal level, nor are they technically
> allowed to contract the US Constitution.  (Actually, what it really is:
> jurisdictions are not allowed to contradict superordinate jurisdictions;
> they can extend them.  So for example, a state can impose additional
> penalties over those specified by Federal law, but it cannot
> decriminalize something that is illegal in the superordinate
> jurisdiction---nor can it criminalize something explicitly made legal in
> the superordinate jurisdiction.)
> 
> In _practice_, however, it can be somewhat different.  A jurisdiction
> will often act in a way not permitted by our legal system.  As with
> trying a case in court, the law is selectively enforced.  What I mean by
> that is that in a court, a lawyer must raise an objection to call the
> referee (the judge) to make a ruling or impose a penalty.  The referee
> doesn't proactively call out things which are technically disallowed.
> So it is with jurisdictions: someone must call "objection" to the
> superordinate jurisdiction before it will step in (in some stupid,
> pompous and legally prescribed manner, probably) and deal with the
> problem.
> 
> 	--- Mike

Makes sense.  I have been turning this over in my head trying to figure
out the logic. This is not meant as a discussion of the right or wrong
of carrying weapons, or the definition of The 2nd amendment, but rather
as a question of how the Bill of Rights are applied. 

-- 
Damon
damon at damtek.com