Talk:United States v. Cruikshank

Untitled

Was it a 'militia' or 'mob'--no small distinction there?StevenTorrey (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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).

The reasoning in Cruikshank is ingenious. The RKBA is recognized as a universal human right (rather than granted to citizens alone) by the Constitution, and therefore it is not a "privilege ... of citizens of the United States" protected by the Fourteenth!

By the way, BEAST, when you write "A2A" and "A14A", clearly one of the As is for Amendment, but what's the other? —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Heller

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Heller did not discuss incorporation, the Second Amendment is still unincorporated, and so the mention here is improper. I've removed the whole parenthetical, unless someone has a better idea. Biccat (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

McDonald v. Chicago incorporates the Second Amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.29.146 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Dissenting Opinion" misleading

It seems misleading to refer to Clifford's opinion as the dissenting opinion in this case, when in fact what he is offering is a concurring opinion - "I concur that the judgment in this case should be arrested, but for reasons quite different from those given by the court." Although it is labeled as a "dissent" in the case opinion, the phrasing of the article gives the erroneous impression that Clifford voted to uphold the indictments, when he clearly did not. I am making appropriate changes in the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Colfax "Riot"

I will be reverting the edit that removed this statement, as I have located an appropriate reference. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarity

For people like me, very basic information should be presented first. Who is Cruikshank and who is the US government representing? "the Cruikshank court held…" and "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt…” should appear in the first sentences under ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.106.189 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When the federal government tried to find the perpetrators of the massacre, they couldn't find almost any of them except Cruikshank. I think he was the only one ever charged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.45.79 (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States v. Cruikshank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107063310/http://columbialawreview.org/thirteenth-amendment-optimism/ to http://columbialawreview.org/thirteenth-amendment-optimism/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Very serious omission

If this article is entitled "United States v. Cruikshank," shouldn't we at least mention who the "Cruikshank" was? William J. Cruikshank was one of 17 members of a white mob indicted for lynching African American men. This is a very serious omission. How did it happen that the authors of this article failed to explain who Cruikshank was? Please correct this, in order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)