Thanks for being an ambassador.
Maryland Constutution
- Thread starter PowPow
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Thanks for being an ambassador.
Wait...Maryland has a Constitution? Someone should tell the Legislature and the Governor.
There was a lawsuit brought against the Senate representation and the courts ruled that the state could not do as the federal government does and had to elect the Senators based on population. I believe the lawsuit was sometime in the 60's???
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Apologies - you may not have seen it. Post 17. I think this is it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
Yep, I saw it, but there was also a Maryland specific lawsuit about the same time. The Alabam case made it to SCOTUS before the Maryland one did.
Essentially we have a house of delegates and a kinda super duper house of delegates masquerading as a senate.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if there were a ballot question put to the voters to have them decide which house could be dissolved to you know, save money and time and to make the de facto unicameral MGA actually come to pass. I guess it would take less time to pass all the anti-gun bills they want and would make them happier. Slower process does get rid of some crap.
In doing a little research it looks like all the states follow this pattern since the '60's but some use slightly different methods. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature and Wyoming (if I recall correctly) has house districts and separate senate districts both based on population levels but the senate may use larger populations which create larger districts and less senators than representatives.
For what its worth, I think the Supreme court was incorrect in their decisions on this matter during the '60's and may have violated states rights in the 9th and 10th amendments.
WatTyler
Ultimate Member
1964 ruling. Earl Warren. It's a lock.
Dred Scott was wrong too
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Article 24.
That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or
deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land. (1977, ch. 681, ratified Nov. 7, 1978.)
That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or
deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land. (1977, ch. 681, ratified Nov. 7, 1978.)
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Excellent! I somehow missed Article 24 in my read. Thanks for posting it! Definitely belongs in the summary.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
I now see how I missed it. The PDF splits Article 24 across two pages.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
I think I need some help understanding the meaning of Article 24. It seems to me like they're saying that it's okay for a court or state law to deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. But, it's not right for anyone else to. I must be misreading the "but by the".
PowPow
Where's the beef?
I just added Article III Section 40, 40A-C which help to clarify Article 24. 40A-C look, read, and smell like tyranny to me.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Amendment V further clarifies. It also adds a due process requirement . Maryland's red flag law (HB1302) plainly thumbs its nose at this amendment as well as the COTUS and hundreds of years of law.
There are many states in the same position. Mostly Blue. It's spreading like a virus. The Feelz Virus.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,269
Red Flag certainly deprives a person of his property before there is any "judgement of his peers".
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Article 2 of the Maryland Constitution would seem to be incompatible with Gov. Hogan's action today.
Last I checked, the first amendment protects our right to peaceably assemble and our right to freely exercise religion. His order today would seem to prohibit my church, for example, from holding services (as we have over 250 present every Sunday). His order would prevent just about any gathering for any purpose that would have more than 250 people. Who gave him that power? It would seem that Title 14 of the Maryland Public Safety code would. This seems like too much power for just one man to wield.
Last I checked, the first amendment protects our right to peaceably assemble and our right to freely exercise religion. His order today would seem to prohibit my church, for example, from holding services (as we have over 250 present every Sunday). His order would prevent just about any gathering for any purpose that would have more than 250 people. Who gave him that power? It would seem that Title 14 of the Maryland Public Safety code would. This seems like too much power for just one man to wield.
aps410
Member
It would appear the we gave him that power to governor as early as 2003 :
https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Docume...ionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
the subsection you are looking for is below:
Orders, rules, and regulations to control and terminate public emergency--Issuance
(b) After proclaiming a state of emergency, the Governor may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, or regulations that the Governor considers necessary to protect life and property or calculated effectively to control and terminate the public emergency in the emergency area, including orders, rules, or regulations to:
(1) control traffic, including public and private transportation, in the emergency area;
(2) designate specific zones in the emergency area in which the occupancy and use of buildings and vehicles may be controlled;
(3) control the movement of individuals or vehicles into, in, or from the designated zones;
(4) control places of amusement and places of assembly;
(5) control individuals on public streets;
(6) establish curfews;
(7) control the sale, transportation, and use of alcoholic beverages;
(8) control the possession, sale, carrying, and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons, and ammunition;
(9) control the storage, use, and transportation of explosives or flammable materials or liquids considered to be dangerous to public safety, including “Molotov cocktails”; and
(10) authorize the use of alternate care sites.
emphasis mine. The bolded section concerns our 1st amendment rights in a state of emergency. I find this concerning as I can't recall him designating zones in his speech today so I would expect the designation to come with the written order. IANAL so I don't see why he couldn't designate the entire state as the "zone" but I imagine that could be challenged in court.
The primary power I disagree with is highlighted in red. I find it curious that a governor would need to be able to control possession of firearms in a state of emergency. I would think the only way this would make sense is if the governor could control the possession of firearms to better arm and direct the militia. Otherwise I can only infer that this was added with more nefarious intentions.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Yeah, I read Title 14 before I posted this today. Too much power for one man to wield. Way too much. His written order was in the linked text of mine that you quoted. Here is a more obvious link to it:
https://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Prohibiting-Large-Gatherings.pdf
https://governor.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Prohibiting-Large-Gatherings.pdf
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (4 Viewers)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
-