Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: 'Gun rights lawyer gives hope to liberal causes', The WashingtonTimes.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...iberal-causes/

    An attorney who won a landmark case overturning the District's handgun ban has rankled conservatives who say a Second Amendment case he will argue Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court could be fodder for liberal judges to mandate constitutional guarantees for gay marriage, abortion rights or government-provided health care.

    The case, arguing that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should be binding on states and localities across the country, has exposed fissures in the gun rights community and drawn many liberals willing to cede the gun rights battle as unlikely allies.

    Alexandria, Va., lawyer Alan Gura will argue on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association to overturn Chicago's handgun ban in a case that will have far-reaching implications for state and local gun control laws.

    Mr. Gura, who won the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the high court declared in a 5-4 vote that the District's near-total ban on handguns was unconstitutional, has co-opted for the Second Amendment the liberal tactic of strategic civil rights litigation and emerged as an icon in the gun rights community, often conflicting with the National Rifle Association, which has long lobbied for legislative gun rights reforms.

    At a recent moot court — a simulated court proceeding at which lawyers hone their arguments — Mr. Gura was peppered with queries by questioners at the Heritage Foundation. Observers said many in the audience at the Washington-based conservative think tank were concerned about Mr. Gura's responses to questions touching on the political implications of his arguments.

    Mr. Gura declined to comment on the moot court proceeding, saying it was one of six in which he participated before groups of varying political beliefs. But the skepticism with which his answers were met by the conservative audience is indicative of the reaction he has met among some critics.

    Legal reasoning
    While the Heller case turned largely on whether the Founding Fathers intended to convey an individual right to own guns, Mr. Gura's latest case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, has less to do with the rights of gun owners than it does the question of whether the Second Amendment can be applied to the states through the 14th Amendment — a Reconstruction-era amendment defining the rights associated with national citizenship.

    The amendment, and its clause guaranteeing due process of law, has been invoked by the Supreme Court as the foundation for decisions that ended racial segregation and extended protections outlined in the Bill of Rights one by one against the states to all Americans by what legal scholars call "incorporation."

    Citing the due process clause, the high court has ruled that states, in addition to the federal government, cannot infringe on the First Amendment's right of free speech, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, among other protections spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

    But, in addition to asking the high court to consider whether the right to keep and bear arms should be selectively incorporated to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment's due process clause, Mr. Gura is asking the justices to overturn precedents that stemmed from a century-old decision involving another 14th Amendment clause, the "privileges or immunities" clause.

    That clause says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

    "This is the best argument for the right to bear arms," Mr. Gura said, noting that the privileges or immunities clause was intended to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to all Americans and made the federal government responsible for guaranteeing those rights, rather than the states.

    The privileges or immunities clause, Mr. Gura argued, was created primarily to protect recently freed slaves from oppressive and discriminatory laws enacted by some Southern states after the Civil War and was misinterpreted in an 1873 Supreme Court decision.

    In a series of cases known collectively as the Slaughterhouse Cases, the high court rejected a claim by a collection of butchers that the Louisiana Legislature violated their fundamental rights of citizenship by granting a monopoly on the right to butcher animals within the city of New Orleans. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the privileges or immunities clause protected only citizenship rights bestowed by the federal government.

    If the current justices side with Mr. Gura and overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases ruling, not only will states be bound to recognize the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but they also will be forced to recognize the other constitutional rights that have never been applied to states, such as the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment in a criminal trial and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury in a civil trial.

    Unintended consequences
    Constitutional scholar Ken Klukowski warned that a ruling incorporating the Second Amendment based on privileges or immunities and overturning Slaughterhouse could have broad political implications.

    "Slaughterhouse may be second only to Marbury v. Madison as the most impactful Supreme Court decision of all time," he said. "It could fundamentally rewrite the nature of what goes on in this country."

    Mr. Klukowski wrote an amicus brief in support of Mr. Gura's case filed by a handful of conservative groups, including the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), a nonprofit organization founded by Robert B. Carleson, who was an adviser to President Reagan.

    The group, whose policy board includes conservative legal heavyweights such as former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III and former Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr, supports incorporation of the Second Amendment through the privileges or immunities clause but asks the court not to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases decision.

    "The Privileges or Immunities Clause could be used as a source for judicial activism unlike anything America has ever seen," the group said on its Web site.

    Although some are concerned about the decision's potential for liberal judges to seek constitutional guarantees, including those for gay marriage, abortion rights or government-provided health care, legal scholars disagree about how big the impact could be, in large part because the justices would be tasked with interpreting what a revived privileges or immunities clause would mean.

    Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, who supports overturning Slaughterhouse, said some conservatives are sensationalizing the issue. He said overturning Slaughterhouse would mean only that future courts could protect those unenumerated rights recognized prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

    Those rights, reiterated throughout American history, include the rights to government protection, to obtain and hold property and to sue. He said some conservatives exaggerate the effect that overturning Slaughterhouse would have because they think the court should protect only those rights enumerated in the Constitution.

    "Correcting this mistake doesn't have to be superbig," he said. "It doesn't have to do more than putting what the Court is already doing on a sound constitutional footing — and lining it up with history."

    Mr. Gura confronted the issue directly in an interview last year with the libertarian Reason magazine.

    "Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear a faithful interpretation of the Constitution, and nobody has any legitimate reason to fear effective and complete protection of civil rights," he said. "There are people who do fear what they might perceive to be a bad case following from the decision in McDonald, but the fact a future court might make an erroneous decision is no excuse to make an erroneous decision in this case."

    Allies and opponents
    Conservatives who fear that liberals are plotting to test the court's willingness to explore new unenumerated rights may not be simply engaging in conspiracy theories.
    A frequently cited report by the Constitutional Accountability Center's David H. Gans and Douglas T. Kendall predicted that a "historic debate over the meaning of the privileges or immunities clause is very likely coming, and progressives need to participate to ensure an appropriate construction of the clause."

    "They cannot afford to absent themselves simply because the first beneficiary of the demise of Slaughterhouse may be a conservative cause, Second Amendment rights," the report says.

    In November, the left-leaning center — an unlikely ally — filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of Mr. Gura on behalf of eight constitutional scholars from across the ideological spectrum. The brief was among a series of filings in the case that blurred the lines between traditional gun rights allies and opponents.

    Some of the briefs, like the ACRU brief, support the McDonald case but attempt to undermine its principal argument.

    A brief by a group called Arms Keepers that describes itself as a "volunteer organization that supports reasonable regulation of handguns and rifles, instead of prohibition," similarly asked the court to rule in favor of the petitioners based on the privileges or immunities clause but without overruling the Slaughterhouse precedent.

    An amicus brief in support of Mr. Gura's case filed by the American Legislative Exchange Council — a nonpartisan organization made up of about 1,500 state legislators — noted that overturning Slaughterhouse would be unnecessarily destructive of court precedents.

    The National Rifle Association filed its own case seeking to overturn the Chicago gun ban based on the more traditional constitutional argument that it violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Stephen P. Halbrook, the constitutional lawyer who brought the NRA case, said that after the Heller decision, he would be "somewhat surprised" if the court did not incorporate the Second Amendment.

    While he thinks the most effective way would be to incorporate through due process, he filed an amicus brief on behalf of the NRA in support of Mr. Gura's argument that also defends overturning the Slaughterhouse decision. He said the goal of the NRA is to see the Second Amendment incorporated against the states, and he acknowledged the concerns of opponents.

    "They're basically predicting the sky would fall," he said. "I don't think the sky would fall."

    In January, the court opted to grant some of Mr. Gura's time during oral arguments to the NRA. While the court does not explain its decisions, Mr. Halbrook speculated that the justices might want to ensure the due process argument is adequately represented.

    A plausible reading
    Some of the country's top constitutional scholars agree with Mr. Gura that the court misinterpreted the 14th Amendment almost 150 years ago.

    Harvard University law professor Laurence H. Tribe wrote in 1999 that the Slaughterhouse decision "incorrectly gutted the privileges or immunities clause." Yale University law professor Akhil Amar expressed a similar sentiment in a 2001 Pepperdine Law Review article.

    The Supreme Court also has hinted that it may be willing to revisit the issue. In a 1999 ruling that touched on the privileges or immunities clause, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion, signaled his interest in reconsidering its meaning in a more fitting case.

    But the Supreme Court is historically hard to read.

    George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said that after the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, in which the court held unconstitutional a 62-year-old federal statue that prohibited corporations from making direct federal campaign expenditures, the justices may be less inclined to issue another ruling with historic implications so quickly.

    Mr. Turley also said the divisions over McDonald resembled the divisions in the Citizens United case. That case, he said, divided liberals who disagreed with the policy implications but supported the reinforcement of free speech. He said he expects the Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment, which he thinks is the right decision, but is less likely to overturn Slaughterhouse.

    "That is already a lot of water to carry for the majority. I'm not sure they're going to want to add to it by overturning Slaughterhouse," he said. "But that's a possibility."
    If Slaughterhouse is overturned, Mr. Turley said, the effects will be far less dramatic than conservatives and liberals have projected, adding that "both sides may be exaggerating the impact of full incorporation."


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    My opinion is that the Slaughterhouse cases were indeed ruled poorly. I think they should overturn them; however, don't believe they will. Just like in Heller, the end effect was correct to the question at hand, but reading the opinions, it was for the wrong reasons. SCOTUS managed to strengthen and weaken the right at the same time. :? They'll probably do the same here.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    I predict that the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states through the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as requested by Alan Gura and not via the 'due process' clause argued by the NRA.

    This SCOTUS is left leaning and the 'privilege or immunities' allows a more extreme expansion of civil rights into homosexuality and health care.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely
    Lyle Denniston | Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 11:26 am Analysis
    The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Any word on a transcript of the oral arguments yet?

    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    ASAP

    Denniston's summary at the link URL above. In the contest between Gura and NRA, apparently Gura lost to the narrower right-wing argument.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    I imagine that the transcript will appear first here
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...anscripts.html

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    ASAP

    Denniston's summary at the link URL above. In the contest between Gura and NRA, apparently Gura lost to the narrower right-wing argument.
    They must have updated the link.. Before only a short blurb was there. (or maybe I didn't scroll down like an idiot).

    *anxiously awaits full written transcript*

    I figured that even the liberal justices would be afraid of the P&I clause. I'm not, more rights the better I say.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    ASAP

    Denniston's summary at the link URL above. In the contest between Gura and NRA, apparently Gura lost to the narrower right-wing argument.
    They must have updated the link.. Before only a short blurb was there. (or maybe I didn't scroll down like an idiot).

    *anxiously awaits full written transcript*

    I figured that even the liberal justices would be afraid of the P&I clause. I'm not, more rights the better I say.
    It looks from the transcript like they are going to go the DP clause route on incorporation.

    Hopefully they do not take up the opportunity to again slaughter the P & I Clause.

    I am concerned though that with "partial incorporation" on the table, they may not be able to avoid P & I.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    It looks from the transcript like they are going to go the DP clause route on incorporation.

    Hopefully they do not take up the opportunity to again slaughter the P & I Clause.

    I am concerned though that with "partial incorporation" on the table, they may not be able to avoid P & I.
    For arguments sake, what would be your fears of incorporation through P&I? I tend to favor it actually. At least I favor throwing Slaughterhouse out on it's backside.

    Let us not forget that Clarence Thomas was someone we didn't hear from at all during the orals (as usual), and there is evidence to support that he would like to explore the P&I clause.

    I still don't think they will go that route, but it's interesting to consider the consequences if they do.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Incorporation via 'P or I' opens the door to expanded civil rights, the wedge issue between the right and left wings.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Incorporation via 'P or I' opens the door to expanded civil rights, the wedge issue between the right and left wings.
    Is that in answer to my post? I agree with it but it wasn't what I'm asking. I guess what I'm asking is that is there any reason any of us should fear expanded civil rights? I don't think so. I think the only people that are afraid of it are those who will lose power because of it. Namely the justices, and politicians. Of course, those that succumb to the fear laden rhetoric of partisan politics will also fear it since they won't take the time to actually consider it.

    Also, it would be interesting to explore the possible unenumerated rights we would gain. Like the justices asked Gura.

    The right to privacy is one interesting unenumerated right that has come about, what else could we get. The right not to have to license our dogs? The right to be unfettered by numerous other bogus laws?
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Homosexual rights, rights to health (care), housing, transportation, living wages...

    Pretty much any cause attractive to social liberals.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Homosexual rights, rights to health (care), housing, transportation, living wages...

    Pretty much any cause attractive to social liberals.
    Whether it's seen that way by the lawmakers and justices, the way I see it, no one has a right to health care, housing, transportation, or living wages if that right tramples on others rights. ie; if someone else is paying for it. Just because we have a right to something doesn't mean that the something should be provided by others. After all, we have an enumerated right to property but the government doesn't provide us with said property. We aren't provided with firearms to protect our selves. We aren't provided with brains to exercise our 1A rights. I could see the problem with the politicians not agreeing with me though. As far as homosexuals are concerned, that isn't of any concern to me or anyone else if that's what they want to do.

    Bottom line; I don't think we should be afraid of having more protection. Since the BOR restrains government and protects the rights instead of giving us rights it restrains the government from messing with them, not requiring them to give freebies. IMHO of course.


    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    It looks from the transcript like they are going to go the DP clause route on incorporation.

    Hopefully they do not take up the opportunity to again slaughter the P & I Clause.

    I am concerned though that with "partial incorporation" on the table, they may not be able to avoid P & I.
    For arguments sake, what would be your fears of incorporation through P&I? I tend to favor it actually. At least I favor throwing Slaughterhouse out on it's backside.

    Let us not forget that Clarence Thomas was someone we didn't hear from at all during the orals (as usual), and there is evidence to support that he would like to explore the P&I clause.

    I still don't think they will go that route, but it's interesting to consider the consequences if they do.
    Being a "liberal," what concerns me most is a return to the Lochner era of economic rights thatimpede the government from doing things like the National Recovery Act.

    I seethat as more of a problem with this Court as currently constituted.

    Also don't want this Court to re-"Slaughter" P&I with an "up to date" decision. Hope that they leave the P&I issue for another day, because Due Process does the job with Chicago.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Being a "liberal," what concerns me most is a return to the Lochner era of economic rights thatimpede the government from doing things like the National Recovery Act.

    I seethat as more of a problem with this Court as currently constituted.

    Also don't want this Court to re-"Slaughter" P&I with an "up to date" decision. Hope that they leave the P&I issue for another day, because Due Process does the job with Chicago.
    I find it entertaining that the economic rights are one of the things I most believe should return. Of course; I'm not a "liberal" in today's context. Do you believe that Slaughterhouse was correctly decided? That government should have the power to put people out of business and create a monopoly as they did in those cases. Do you believe that a state should require a license for your floral business and then put your competitors on the board that decides whether you get a license?

    I do agree and also worry about the court "Slaughtering" PoI but just because Due Process is "easier" as Scalia put it, doesn't mean it's right. I agree with Alan Gura; that it would put more restraint on judicial activism.

    I'm almost never worried about something that restrains government.

    As for a problem with how the court is currently constituted, do you mean politics, morality, or IQ?
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    I predict that the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states through the 'privileges or immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as requested by Alan Gura and not via the 'due process' clause argued by the NRA.

    This SCOTUS is left leaning and the 'privilege or immunities' allows a more extreme expansion of civil rights into homosexuality and health care.
    If you believe this, I'd think this bothers you.

    I have two remarks:

    There is nothing "extreme" about gay-rights advocacy (and we're not at a point where we have true equality as long as the government regulates and defines personal relationships).

    There is no "privilege" (means "right" in this context) to Health Care to be found anywhere. And there will not be discovered one by the SCOTUS. The liberals' only shot here is through congress.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I'm almost never worried about something that restrains government.
    +∞

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    Being a "liberal," what concerns me most is a return to the Lochner era of economic rights thatimpede the government from doing things like the National Recovery Act.

    I seethat as more of a problem with this Court as currently constituted.

    Also don't want this Court to re-"Slaughter" P&I with an "up to date" decision. Hope that they leave the P&I issue for another day, because Due Process does the job with Chicago.
    I find it entertaining that the economic rights are one of the things I most believe should return. Of course; I'm not a "liberal" in today's context. Do you believe that Slaughterhouse was correctly decided? That government should have the power to put people out of business and create a monopoly as they did in those cases. Do you believe that a state should require a license for your floral business and then put your competitors on the board that decides whether you get a license?

    I do agree and also worry about the court "Slaughtering" PoI but just because Due Process is "easier" as Scalia put it, doesn't mean it's right. I agree with Alan Gura; that it would put more restraint on judicial activism.

    I'm almost never worried about something that restrains government.

    As for a problem with how the court is currently constituted, do you mean politics, morality, or IQ?

    A major difference between the floral business and slaughter-houses was that slaughter-houses had severe effects on the health of the surrounding population.

    I agree that states have the power to regulate businesses for health reasons, even if it means drastically changing the way business is done.

    In the case of the floral business, there might be a question about whether the regulation in question is rationally related to any legitimate public interest.That question might arise under the DP and the EP clauses, and --in my opinion-- should arise under the P & I clause.

    I am not annoyed withthe result in Slaughterhouse-- but I am bothered with howthe caseswere decided --and how that decision is applied regarding the P & I clause. I think P & I ought to encompass civil rights.

    What a Court ideologically concerned with economic liberties might do withP & I isto bring us back to the Supremes of the 1930s, standing against a President and a Congress to prevent necessary bold actions in the economic sphere.

    Politically, I don't trust the Court: but luckily, I think the members of the Courtdon'ttrust themselves that much either.I hope they find a way of avoiding P & I without doing it violence.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    A major difference between the floral business and slaughter-houses was that slaughter-houses had severe effects on the health of the surrounding population.

    I agree that states have the power to regulate businesses for health reasons, even if it means drastically changing the way business is done.
    I agree that some may have an effect on the surrounding population; but there are other ways that the Feds and states can garner the power to regulate that through general welfare clauses and such. Therefore; IMO, theres no need to strip us of other rights.
    In the case of the floral business, there might be a question about whether the regulation in question is rationally related to any legitimate public interest.That question might arise under the DP and the EP clauses, and --in my opinion-- should arise under the P & I clause.

    IMO, it should only arise under general welfare clauses; that's where the government was given the power. I know we will have fundamental disagreements on the issue of what would be a legitimate public interest but wouldn't it seem that the PoI clause and DP clause are for us? For our rights? To restrict power and not give it? Government powers are outlined elsewhere in the constitution.

    I am not annoyed withthe result in Slaughterhouse-- but I am bothered with howthe caseswere decided --and how that decision is applied regarding the P & I clause. I think P & I ought to encompass civil rights.

    What a Court ideologically concerned with economic liberties might do withP & I isto bring us back to the Supremes of the 1930s, standing against a President and a Congress to prevent necessary bold actions in the economic sphere.

    Politically, I don't trust them: but luckily, I think they don'ttrust themselves either.
    The last comment is my problem also; I wish politics didn't have anything to do with the courts as I believe they have no place there. The laws should be interepreted as to their original intent and nothing more in my opinion. There shouldn't be room for political maneuvering. In an ideal world the justices that succumb to that should be impeached. Like FDR's self appointed harem of justices.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    A major difference between the floral business and slaughter-houses was that slaughter-houses had severe effects on the health of the surrounding population.

    I agree that states have the power to regulate businesses for health reasons, even if it means drastically changing the way business is done.
    I agree that some may have an effect on the surrounding population; but there are other ways that the Feds and states can garner the power to regulate that through general welfare clauses and such. Therefore; IMO, theres no need to strip us of other rights.
    In the case of the floral business, there might be a question about whether the regulation in question is rationally related to any legitimate public interest.That question might arise under the DP and the EP clauses, and --in my opinion-- should arise under the P & I clause.

    IMO, it should only arise under general welfare clauses; that's where the government was given the power. I know we will have fundamental disagreements on the issue of what would be a legitimate public interest but wouldn't it seem that the PoI clause and DP clause are for us? For our rights? To restrict power and not give it? Government powers are outlined elsewhere in the constitution.

    I am not annoyed withthe result in Slaughterhouse-- but I am bothered with howthe caseswere decided --and how that decision is applied regarding the P & I clause. I think P & I ought to encompass civil rights.

    What a Court ideologically concerned with economic liberties might do withP & I isto bring us back to the Supremes of the 1930s, standing against a President and a Congress to prevent necessary bold actions in the economic sphere.

    Politically, I don't trust them: but luckily, I think they don'ttrust themselves either.
    The last comment is my problem also; I wish politics didn't have anything to do with the courts as I believe they have no place there. The laws should be interepreted as to their original intent and nothing more in my opinion. There shouldn't be room for political maneuvering. In an ideal world the justices that succumb to that should be impeached. Like FDR's self appointed harem of justices.
    I'm not sure that we disagree that much:

    I like "general welfare" clauses as a vehicle forslaughter-house type regulation. Iam less comfortable with inherent "police powers"which the Slaughterhousecourt relied on.

    I might pick on the "harem" thing a bit: some of FDR's justices are favorites . . . .

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Brass Magnet wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    A major difference between the floral business and slaughter-houses was that slaughter-houses had severe effects on the health of the surrounding population.

    I agree that states have the power to regulate businesses for health reasons, even if it means drastically changing the way business is done.
    I agree that some may have an effect on the surrounding population; but there are other ways that the Feds and states can garner the power to regulate that through general welfare clauses and such. Therefore; IMO, theres no need to strip us of other rights.
    In the case of the floral business, there might be a question about whether the regulation in question is rationally related to any legitimate public interest.That question might arise under the DP and the EP clauses, and --in my opinion-- should arise under the P & I clause.

    IMO, it should only arise under general welfare clauses; that's where the government was given the power. I know we will have fundamental disagreements on the issue of what would be a legitimate public interest but wouldn't it seem that the PoI clause and DP clause are for us? For our rights? To restrict power and not give it? Government powers are outlined elsewhere in the constitution.

    I am not annoyed withthe result in Slaughterhouse-- but I am bothered with howthe caseswere decided --and how that decision is applied regarding the P & I clause. I think P & I ought to encompass civil rights.

    What a Court ideologically concerned with economic liberties might do withP & I isto bring us back to the Supremes of the 1930s, standing against a President and a Congress to prevent necessary bold actions in the economic sphere.

    Politically, I don't trust them: but luckily, I think they don'ttrust themselves either.
    The last comment is my problem also; I wish politics didn't have anything to do with the courts as I believe they have no place there. The laws should be interepreted as to their original intent and nothing more in my opinion. There shouldn't be room for political maneuvering. In an ideal world the justices that succumb to that should be impeached. Like FDR's self appointed harem of justices.
    I'm not sure that we disagree that much:

    I like "general welfare" clauses as a vehicle forslaughter-house type regulation. Iam less comfortable with inherent "police powers"which the Slaughterhousecourt relied on.

    I might pick on the "harem" thing a bit: some of FDR's justices are favorites . . . .
    I can live with that... except for the harem.... definitely a harem....LOL Wasn't Wickard v. Filburn pretty much his fault if I remember correctly? It's been a while since I've studied up on that.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Hard to say that a particular decision is a president's "fault" anymore than one can blame it on the Great Depression or WWII.

    But these things, like presidenciesand events,have a tendency over the expanse of time to self-correct, at least to someextent: witness U.S. v. Lopez, overturning the Gun Free School Zone Actas an abuse ofthe Commerce Clause.

    Wickard is still wicked, no doubt about that: those folks who contemplate manufacturing and selling machine guns in Montana for use "only in the state" may wish to give Wickard a read before giving up their day jobs . . . .

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Well, he did pack the court to get what he wanted. Is it any worse than ignoring the court and sending the indians west? Probably not, but an abuse of power none the less.

    The Donkey wrote:
    Wickard is still wicked, no doubt about that: those folks who contemplate manufacturing and selling machine guns in Montana for use "only in the state" may wish to give Wickard a read before giving up their day jobs . . . .
    Isn't Wickard one of the reasons they are contemplating it? My understanding is they are seeking to get it overturned by passing the so called "states rights" bills in various states.

    Maybe they believe Lopez opened the door enough to get a wedge in there.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:

    Maybe they believe Lopez opened the door enough to get a wedge in there.
    They might believe it, but I have my doubts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._Stewart_(2003)

    More likely, they are pander bears.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •