
	Where results make sense

Topic: United States v Cruikshank

Related Topics

Due process

List of United States Supreme Court cases

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Ex parte Milligan

United States Constitution

Slaughterhouse Cases

Ex Parte Garland

Supreme Court of the United States

First Amendment

Ex parte McCardle

Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

Civil Rights Cases

Bill of Rights

In the News (Fri 17 Feb 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Cruikshank, 92 U.S. (1875), was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
		The Cruikshank case dealt with the Colfax Massacre, an incident in which an armed mob of whites attacked and killed over one hundred fls in Colfax, Louisiana.
		Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to halt the violence of the Ku Klux Klan in preventing fls from voting, the Cruikshank court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses apply only to state action, and not to actions of individuals.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank (231 words)

	Logan v. United States continued
		In answer to the argument that the parties assaulted were not officers of the United States, and that their protection by Congress in exercising the right to vote did not stand on the same ground with the protection of election officers of the United States, the court, speaking by Mr.
		United States; and the private right of a citizen, having made a homestead entry, to be protected from interference while remaining in the possession of the land for the time of occupancy which Congress has enacted shall entitle him to a patent.
		United States, 142 U.S. As the defendants were indicted and to be tried for a crime punishable with death, those jurors who stated on voir dire that they had "conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of the death penalty for crime" were rightly permitted to be challenged by the government for cause.
	www.guncite.com /court/fed/sc/144us288.html (4456 words)

	Yates v. United States
		United States, 320 U.S. 118, a denaturalization proceeding in which he was the prevailing party, are not conclusive in this proceeding under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and he is not entitled to a judgment of acquittal on that ground.
		United States, [354 U.S. Here, the three California cases relied on by petitioners were all decisions of lower courts, and, in the absence of anything in the legislative history indicating that they were called to its attention, we should not assume that Congress was aware of them.
		United States, 249 U.S. 22 This distinction was heavily underscored in Gitlow v.
	www.geocities.com /thestreetsentinel/yates.html (11114 words)

	United States v. Cruikshank et al.
		The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States.
		If a State cannot protect itself against domestic violence, the United States may, upon the call of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened, lend their assistance for that purpose.
		Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens thereof; and the fourteenth amendment also provides, that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
	www.guncite.com /court/fed/sc/92us542.html (6373 words)

	Swift And Co. v. United States
		United States, 171 U.S. The charge is not of a conspiracy wither to do a criminal or unlawful act, or to do by unlawful means the lawful act of fixing their own charges for cartage.
		United States, 116 U.S. Judges have differed as to the validity of aggregations of capital effected by some from of organic union between several smaller and competing corporations, and economists are far from agreeing that such aggregations, within limitations, are hurtful.
		United States, 171 U.S. All that was decided there was that the local business of commission merchants was not commerce among the States, even if what the brokers were employed to sell was an object of such commerce.
	www.tourolaw.edu /patch/Swift (5856 words)

	UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK et al.
		Three of the defendants, Cruikshank, Hadnot and Irwin, have been convicted of conspiracy under the first series of counts, which are founded on the sixth section of the act, and now move in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the act is unconstitutional, and that the indictment does not charge any crime under it.
		The first section provides that all citizens of the United States, otherwise qualified, shall be allowed to vote at all elections in any state, county, city, township, etc., without distinction of race, color or previous condition of servitude, any constitution, law, custom or usage of any state or territory to the contrary notwithstanding.
		The amendment declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and power is given to congress to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.
	www.constitution.org /2ll/2ndcourt/federal/11fed.htm (4663 words)

	Second Amendment U. S. Supreme Court Cases (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		Since Herman Presser was not a member of the State of Illinois Militia or a member of the United States Military, the Court interpreted that he did not have the right to disobey a state law and parade and drill with arms in cities and towns.
		United States, 445 U. Lewis recognized, in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as the "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'", that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm.
		United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), the defendant was convicted under an earlier version of the NFA which made possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to register separate offenses.
	www.tsra.com /2ndamend.htm (9280 words)

	United States v Morrison (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, struck down §13981 because it concluded that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the section's civil remedy.
		The en banc court then issued an opinion affirming the District Court's conclusion that Brzonkala stated a claim under §13981 because her complaint alleged a crime of violence and the allegations of Morrison's crude and derogatory statements regarding his treatment of women sufficiently indicated that his crime was motivated by gender animus.
		The United States argued that the possession of guns may lead to violent crime, and that violent crime "can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways.
	web.mit.edu /17.245/www/USvMorrison.htm (13810 words)

	untitled
		United States, 319 U.S. The court held that Miller did not "formulate a general rule" regarding which arms were protected by the Second Amendment and concluded, therefore, that many types of arms were not protected.
		United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980) confirmed that Miller focused on the character of the firearm when it summarized the holding of Miller as: "[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
		Cruikshank was the first case in which the Court spoke to the Second Amendment, acknowledging that the right to keep and bear arms was a right which pre-existed the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution.
	www.saf.org /LEAAbrief.htm (2738 words)

	Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions
		United States, 233 U.S. In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v.
		United States, 445 U.S. [Lewis was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and challenged the conviction on various statutory grounds, on the ground that his prior felony conviction was uncounseled and therefore shouldn't be considered, and on constitutional grounds.
		That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.
	www1.law.ucla.edu /~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm (6847 words)

	Supreme Court Cases on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
		Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law.
		And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court.
		United States, 445 U.S. [Lewis was convicted of being a felon in possession, and challenged it on various statutory grounds, on the ground that his prior felony conviction was uncounseled and therefore shouldn't be considered, and on constitutional grounds.
	www1.law.ucla.edu /~volokh/beararms/sct.htm (2243 words)

	Digital History
		The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
		In some States-Pennsylvania, for instance-it may be possible for a fl brute to lay his lecherous hands upon the fair form of a virtuous white girl, deflower her youth, flen and wreck her life, and by counting out a thousand filthy dollars walk out of the courtroom free to repeat his heinous offense.
		But, thank God, in Georgia, and in other States who share her ideals, if a brute lay his hands in violence upon a woman, be he fl or white, high or low, rich or poor, born within or without her borders, he shall pay with his life for this offence.
	www.digitalhistory.uh.edu /learning_history/lynching/bell.cfm (695 words)

	United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
		It is contrary to the decision in United States v.
		State, 3 Ohio N.P.N.S. 13, that it is doubtful whether a shotgun is within the meaning of the term "arms" as used in the Constitution of Ohio.
	www.rkba.org /research/miller/Miller.html (12010 words)

	[No title]
		Cruikshank, 92 U.S. This case was a great victory for the KKK, in which the Court affirmed an order arresting judgments of conviction for conspiracy to deprive freed fls in Louisiana of their civil rights.
		Cruikshank, 92 U.S. The shaky foundation of these cases ("shaky" because the effect was to eviscerate the Fourteenth Amendment itself) has long since been recognized - and long since repudiated by the Court in general.
		The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contract with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.
	www.secondamendment.net /cases.html (1850 words)

	Second Amendment Stuff - Court Decisions (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		Cruikshank, 92 U.S. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment.
		United States, 445 U.S. Lewis recognized--in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)--that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm.
		Yet, as the Supreme Court in Lewis, supra, made clear, Miller held that it is the firearm itself, not the act of keeping and bearing the firearm, which must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." The court did, however, recognize that Miller required evidence of the militia nexus.
	secondamendmentstuff.com /court.htm (2590 words)

	United States v. Morrison
		It states that “[a]ll persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender.” 42 U.S.C. § 13981(b).
		United States, 295 U.S. “There is a view of causation that would obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local in the activities of commerce.
		United States, 505 U.S. And, as discussed above, the Constitution’s separation of federal power and the creation of the Judicial Branch indicate that disputes regarding the extent of congressional power are largely subject to judicial review.
	www.constitution.org /ussc/99-0005a.htm (6611 words)

	Second Amendment
		Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876) In Cruickshank the Court, in an opinion by Justice Bradley, held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments did not give Congress the authority to legislate against private interference with the right to keep and bear arms.
		The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ``individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ``states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.
		United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) dictum: Miller holds that the ``Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `...some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'''.
	mywebpages.comcast.net /rdsandman/second.htm (1116 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)