Today the Supreme Court is hearing an important gun control case. It is McDonald v Chicago. This is the companion law suit to 2008's Heller v District of Columbia. In Heller the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 found that the 2nd Amendment provided an individual right to bare arms. The Justices based some of their thinking on the premise that individuals have a right to protect themselves in their homes and owning a hand gun is part of that right.
In McDonald, there is exactly the same set of circumstances. The reason this case is before the Court is that the District of Columbia is a Federal enclave, like an army fort or an embassy. The question before the Court today is does this right that they found in DC extend to the States as well. Since all five of the Justices that voted in favor of the individual right in Heller are still on the bench, it is all but a forgone conclusion that they will extend this right by virtue of due process to the States.
The lawyer for the gun rights advocates argued that it should be the 14th Amendment "protections or immunities" clause that extends this individual right to the states. This did not get a warm reception from any of the Justices and with good reason. The part of the 14th Amendment which reads :
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
is called the "protections and immunities" clause. It was written after the end of the Civil War and was intended to help bring the first 8 Amendments of the Bill of Rights down to the State level (this was needed because of a Supreme Court decision that held that the Bill of Rights only applied at the Federal level). It has hardly been used as the "equal protection" clause has been the more standard method of extending Federal rights into the states.
The "protections and immunities" clause has basically been dormant since the Slaughter House decision. Going back and overturning that decision gave even Justice Scalia some pause. From SCOTUSblog's very good analysis:
The first argument to collapse as the hearing unfolded was the plea by the lawyer for gun rights advocates, Alan Gura of Alexandria, VA, that the Court should "incorporate" the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment through the "privileges or immunities" clause. In the first comment from the bench after Gura had barely opened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the Court had essentially scuttled that argument with its ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases in 1873. And within a few minutes, Justice Antonin Scalia - the author of the Heller opinion and the Court's most fervent gun enthusiast - was sarcastically dismissing the "privileges or immunities" argument.
"Why," Scalia asked Gura, "are you asking us to overrule 140 years of prior law....unless you are bucking for a place on some law school faculty." The Justice said the "privileges or immunities" argument was "the darling of the professorate" but wondered why Gura would "undertake that burden." And Scalia noted that the "due process" clause - an open-ended provision that he has strongly attacked on other occasions- was available as the vehicle for incorporation, and added: "Even I have acquisced in that." Gura somewhat meekly said "we would be extremely happy:" if the Court used the "due process" clause to extend the Second Amendment's reach.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court struck down on Thursday long-standing limits on corporate spending in U.S. political campaigns, such as this year's congressional races and the 2012 presidential contest.
The 5-4 ruling was a defeat for the Obama administration and the campaign finance law's supporters who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system to promote or defeat candidates.
The ruling by the conservative majority transformed the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in future presidential and congressional elections, which already have broken new spending records with each political cycle.
Nothing is more conservative then overturning long-standing laws.
There is a famous saying "Those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it". These are the words of George Santayana, and they are usually misquoted. Mr. Santayana was right as far as he went in this, if you do not remember what happened before, then you cannot profit from the mistakes of the past. It is a good warning when thinking about the protections our Constitution affords us.
So, we worked, we called, we raised money and we still lost in Maine. Is this an argument for the futility of action? Hardly. This was a fight we had a chance to win, but since our opponents will lie, will use the authority of religion to distract from the real message and will put fear of the other into the hearts of everyone they can, this was always going to be an up hill battle. 53% of the vote in a binary set (one winner one loser) is disappointing, but it is not the end of the world.
Happy Friday and welcome to the 18th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 18th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 17th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 16th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 15th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 14th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 13th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 12th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 11th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 10th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 9th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 8th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 6th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below
After watching the Republican Party cut off its nose to spite its face during the past few days -- especially with a clown like Tom Tancredo setting the tone -- this seems apropos:
RSS Feed
