Posted on 11/07/2023 12:24:56 PM PST by Red Badger
Answer: read post #120.
Yeah, bug makes for fun reading and even some laughs!
2. McDonald v Chicago clarified that. As you've already been told. Rightfully, the 2A is a P&I over every US Citizen... regardless of where in the US they live.
I already said why. You weren't paying attention. I've already said the anti-federalists were worried (and rightfully so) that a central government was too dangerous to control and would become despotic. (They were right - it just took longer than they thought.)
McDonald v Chicago clarified that.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) clarified nothing. As usual the Supreme Court prefers overturning the Slaughterhouse Cases without expressly admitting such. They just use language like "defunct" and "should be rejected" without a sound constitutionally-based rationale (this is ALL ABOUT the incorporation doctrine BTW) failing to consider glaring problems like the absence of ANY debate in Congress prior to the 1868 ratification even though incorporation would give the feds sweeping powers never before contemplated by the Founders or ratifiers. The proof is on the side of ratifiers having no intent to allow such huge increase in the feds' power.
Reading tea leaves from the oral discussion. We will know when they issue their decisions.
Re: 124 - “...They just use language like “defunct” and “should be rejected” without a sound constitutionally-based rationale...”
Where in McDonald v. City of Chicago due the Supreme Court use that language in the Main Opinion, Concurrences or Dissents?
Go to the tet of the case and control-f “defunct” etc and you’ll find it.
The real point is McDonald v. City of Chicago overturns the precedent of Slaughterhouse cases without expressly admitting it. The Leftist Supreme Court continues its relentless towards totalitarianism, ignoring the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended including overwhelming evidence that the incorporation doctrine is counterfeit and has been found wanting.
My apologies as it is in the Main Opinion - Alito was referring to language used by the Seventh Circuit in their Main Opinion.
Given the chance, Judge Robert Bork, considered the leading constitutional scholar of his time, would have lead upholding the precedent of the Slaughterhouse Cases and rejecting counterfeit incorporation (and would have rejected Roe in Casey, 1992). Ted Kennedy saw to it almost single-handedly that Bork would never ascend to the Supreme Court. A great loss and disservice to America and especially to the unborn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.