• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Judicial activism on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol16No3/Esenberg.16.3/Esenberg16.3.html
In 1998, for example, the voters of Wisconsin amended the state constitution to guarantee “the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”[v] Since passage of the amendment, the court has struggled to pave this broad constitutional right in order to preserve Wisconsin's pre-existing statute which, in its own description, “completely ban the carry of concealed weapons by all citizens in all circumstances,” a circumstance that the court has characterized as “anomalous, if not unique.”[vi]
[ ...]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[v] Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25.
[vi] State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, ¶ 51, 264 Wis.2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785.
Click to expand...

Hamdan at Federalist Society debate http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.12/default.asp
This brings us to the issue in Boumedienne, which is whether Congress unconstitutionally deprived the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo of constitutional habeas corpus rights when it passed the MCA. That statute was passed not in the wake of Rasul but in the wake of Hamdan, which said the President could not establish military commissions to try suspected terrorists like the 9/11 plotters now held in Guantanamo without further statutory authority from Congress.
Click to expand...
Clearly an error but indicative of in what this attorney has been engaged, desspite his professional interests, even to having Hamdan in 'his' spell checker.
 
J

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
imported post

I think you're confusing State v. Hamdan, 264 Wis.2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785 (2003), the Wisconsin concealed weapon case, with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006), the Guantanamo Bay detainee case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top