Skip to comments.The Second Amendment, Incorporated
Posted on 06/29/2010 6:16:27 AM PDT by rellimpank
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of McDonald v Chicago, a follow-on case to the Heller case in which the Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not a collective, right. Following Heller, Chicago and a few other localities argued that since that case had been about the District of Columbia's ban, it was not clear that the Court's ruling applied to states and other non-federal territory.
With its 5-4 decision in McDonald, the Court says that the right applies everywhere in the U.S., that the right to keep and bear arms applies equally in cities and states as in D.C. The 5-4 decision comprised a plurality made up of Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy who were joined by Justice Thomas in a separate opinion upholding the outcome of the case but not the path the plurality took to get there. (More later on this important disagreement within the Court's "conservative" wing.) Although the Court's ruling is clearly the right one, two aspects of the decision are troubling.
First, while I might understand how the Court's liberals opposed the original Heller decision, which found that individuals have rights under the Second Amendment, the fact that those same liberals would then argue that a settled right somehow does not apply to the states is remarkable, particularly given how almost every constitutional right we have based on the original Bill of Rights has been interpreted by the Court to be "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment's "Due Process" clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
—as usual, Justice Thomas’ opinion is a masterpiece-—
It's better than the others, but he screwed up the presentation of Cruickshank and Presser. Those two old cases have been radically misstated and misapplied for decades; enabling all manner of anti-gun legislation to "stick" with the express approval of the Federal Courts.
What is “popular consensus” when 50% of the people are semiliterate welfare leeches?
Referencing “popular consensus” is only relevant, anyway, when talking about the popular UNDERSTANDING of the law or amendment
AT THE TIME OF RATIFICATION.
Very astute observation. We see this clearly demonstrated in the court's establishment clause rulings and Kelo decision regarding government takings of property for a "public purpose". The liberal wing of the court just makes it up as they go along based purely on the desired outcome, void of any fundamental principles to control the process.
OUTRAGEOUS...that 4 of America’s robed totalitarian mullahs do not RESIGN.
The left is calling the recent supreme court decisions “activist” because they overturned legislation or precedent.
This is THEIR definition of “activist”, and one they are trying to make us accept in order to justify their judges’ activism,
defined as using something other than the law and the Constitution as the basis for their decisions, whether to uphold or overturn legislation. It is applying their DESIRED outcome and then justifying it.
Basic question: How can reading the plain language of the Constitution be considered “activist”? Around the turn of the 20th century, law schools began a love affair with “precendence” and with ignoring the Constitution. Elena Kagan, for example, changed the Harvard Law curriculum so that graduates no longer have to be grounded in the U.S. Constitution. They do, however, have to take courses in international views of the law.
WE ARE NOT FRANCE/GERMANY/SPAIN/et. al. !!!
Not sure how we’re going to resolve this discrepancy of views short of a “grand divorce”.
Maybe the Human Genome Project will someday reveal what enzymes or DNA the progressive mind is lacking.