Skip to comments.McDonald v. City of Chicago
Posted on 03/01/2010 7:57:04 AM PST by NY.SS-Bar9
In any case, the important question is not what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended, but what the public that ratified the Amendment understood it to mean.
If this is the best argument that they can put forth, the case will be decided (in our favor) by Noon Wednesday.
If I understand correctly, they took the bait of arguing about P&I when the core argument is about incorporation.
The plaintiffs have taken a two-track system.....that the Second Amendment should be incorporated and secondly that Slaughterhouse should be overturned (P&I).
No logic I have ever been able to think of allows Justices to selectively “incorporate” some rights of the Constitution on the states and not others. So since the Court has “incorporated” free speech, religious freedom, freedom from self incrimination etc on the states, it is hard to see how the second ammendment can be logically skipped over.
BTW, I suspect that the framers intended and certainly those that voted to ratify the first ammendment thought that they were voting to allow the free practice of Christianity in any form someone wanted. I suspect they did not think they were voting to allow Islam etc to be freely practiced.
Talk about wanting it both ways.