Replies

Gura, who hopes to raise the clause from the grave with his McDonald arguments, thinks possible misuse of the doctrine is no reason not to embrace it where it's appropriate. "If the Privileges or Immunities Clause guarantees certain unenumerated rights and those rights are violated, then great, have those rights vindicated! But if people file unmeritorious litigation [using Privileges or Immunities Clause arguments] that that litigation will not succeed, the courts will do their job, and that wave of misguided litigation will subside," he says. "A fear that people will try incorrect things [inspired by a revived Privileges or Immunities Clause] is not a reason to keep interpreting it the wrong way today."
Gura may be shooting for the moon in asking the Supreme Court to finally knock down Slaughterhouse after all these years. Fortunately, victory for him and the citizens of Chicago does not depend on this risky strategy. He's leaving room in his arguments for the court to decide in his favor through the means they've used to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights since the premature death of the Privileges or Immunities Clause—the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which has come to mean not merely the procedures used by government but "substantive" due process as well.

In the third link you find:

At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Palin's Revenge: Who's Laughing Now?

How the U.S. Government Rations Health Care

Mark Steyn: Beyond Transgression - You can’t make a Hamlet without breaking a few chicks?

The Obsolescence of a Slur - Criticisms of Obama are increasingly met by cries of “Racist!” Are his critics racists?

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.