3/03/2009

Some Liberal Legal Scholars see advantages to Pushing Heller Supreme Court Decision

Law.com has this note.

The Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in D.C. v. Heller was a constitutional earthquake, breathing life into the Second Amendment as a guarantee of an individual right to bear arms.

But the aftershock of that decision is beginning to transform the constitutional landscape well beyond gun rights, in ways that have liberals cheering and even joining hands with one-time adversaries like the National Rifle Association.

In a follow-on case pending before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a progressive legal group and liberal law professors including Yale Law School's Jack Balkin earlier this month joined gun-rights advocates in urging that the right established in Heller, which involved only the District of Columbia, be extended to apply against gun restrictions in the 50 states. The case is McDonald v. Chicago, a challenge to that city's strict gun control law and, no matter what, the outcome is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

But these academics and the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a brief in the case, have not suddenly taken up the Second Amendment cause, Charlton Heston-style. Rather, they joined the case to urge the court to adopt a new way of making the rights protected by the federal Constitution apply to the states (a process known as "incorporation"). . . . .

Labels: ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

During the reconstruction years, there existed a backlash against any laws which upheld the rights of Americans of African descent.

The Slaughterhouse Cases 1873

U.S. v Cruikshank 1876

In the above cases, there exists so much male bovine fecal matter that is used as an excuse to justify the evisceration of our fundamental rights as human beings, and it was all done to keep the South stable. A rather simplistic viewpoint, but it does have a solid foundation in fact.

The following is an excerpt from the 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Did I miss something in the above quote, or will the City of Chicago use the same assinine excuse that the Supreme Clowns of the United States came up with in the Slaughterhouse cases? To wit: Dual Citizenship. A State can apply laws to it's citizens without regard to the Federal Constitution because they are 'State Citizens'.

Did not the States ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? did they (the States) not understand the meaning of those Laws? The Supreme Clowns of The United States do not seem to grasp them either.

So here we are, some 200 years later fighting against tyranny because there are those whom we placed into a position of authority, and they fear us.

They fear us so much that they will ignore, deny, and supress any laws which were meant to keep us all safe from such as they.

The Madman says to the Clown; "I tell you Clown, this place is dark". The Clown replies; "There is no darkness. There is only ignorance..."

3/04/2009 6:28 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home