Texas AG Shoots Down Prof's Arguments Against Campus Carry

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

campusreform
Amber Athey Aug 03, 2016 at 2:14 PM EDT

http://campusreform.org/?ID=7938

A lawsuit against Texas’ new campus carry law is “frivolous” and lacks “legal justification,” the state’s Attorney General contends in an opposition brief filed Monday.

Three University of Texas professors filed the lawsuit in response to the campus carry law that took effect August 1, arguing that guns in the classroom threaten both academic freedom and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Their argument is based on violating the 14th Amendment?

Which reads: Sec 1

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Citizens of the United States is placed BEFORE Citizens of the State wherein they reside for a reason.

It establishes that US Citizenship has Supremacy over State citizenship.

Which means, that the Federal Constitution with its Shall Not Be Infringed has Supremacy over any State Constitutions or laws.

It negates Any laws Any State may pass which restrict Freedoms guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

In plain English?

ALL State gun laws which erode, chisel, or further restrict the Federal Constitution are Unconstitutional and Invalid.

The argument for further Federal restrictions on All Constitutional rights being predicated upon Congressional Authority to do so under Section 5 of the 14th is also gibberish

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

As Congress does not own the authority to do so without amending the Constitution itself, which they do not have the guts to attempt.




http://wulfanson.blogspot.com

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Justice Antonin Scalia:

"It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself."

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-schuette-v-coalition-to-defend-affirmative-action/966/




http://wulfanson.blogspot.com