tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post6993709533006921015..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: Feingold wants 2nd Amendment applied to Statesillusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-4729551434335296042010-03-05T21:26:07.870-06:002010-03-05T21:26:07.870-06:00An astute digression ... thank you.An astute digression ... thank you.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-17581535149674149702010-03-05T20:53:45.401-06:002010-03-05T20:53:45.401-06:00Good stuff
www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2010_02_2...Good stuff<br /><br />www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2010_02_28_archive.html#3906665998182094007<br /><br /><br />More good stuff<br /><br />volokh.com/2009/11/17/how-many-votes-to-overrule-the-slaughterhouse-cases/<br /><br /><br />Interesting how some of the justices believe that the ruling in Slaughterhouse is dubious, yet partly due to their respect for originalism, past precedent, and the potential implications for future cases, they are NOT compelled to overturn it. <br /><br />Also interesting is how these same justices agreed that corporations are entitled to political free speech similar to citizens, even though their rationale was based on several cases in the late 1900's whose foundation is Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific RR (1886). Former Chief Justice Reinquist duly noted that the ruling was specious itself!<br /><br />The Belloti Case (1978)--"This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., (1886). Likewise, it soon became accepted that the property of a corporation was protected under the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. See, e. g., Smyth v. Ames, (1898). Nevertheless, we concluded soon thereafter that the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, (1906)."<br /><br />I apologize for the digression!<br /><br /><br />Keep up the good work, IT!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-79028144836385539192010-03-02T23:07:03.784-06:002010-03-02T23:07:03.784-06:00Is it all over but the shooting?
Very good. Not s...<i>Is it all over but the shooting?</i><br /><br />Very good. Not sure what the handicappers are saying but I think incorporation is a done deal and the Chicago law is toast, but there will remain the same questions as of old: those being whether or not whatever firearm restrictions get challenged are reasonable regulations (which the Constitution will still allow States and municipalities to make).<br /><br />Should be a very interesting set of opinions, especially that of Justice Thomas, who will write a concurrence that nobody else joins based in Privileges or Immunities rather than Due Process.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-65321137211635048252010-03-02T21:54:24.349-06:002010-03-02T21:54:24.349-06:00Thanks. So what are the handicappers saying, is i...Thanks. So what are the handicappers saying, is incorporation a done deal?<br /><br />In other words, is it all over but the shooting?Jeremy R. Shownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-75639395599476232672010-03-02T17:30:33.601-06:002010-03-02T17:30:33.601-06:00The Supreme Court completely screwed up in the 19t...The Supreme Court completely screwed up in the 19th Century in interpreting what was written, but they still refuse to admit it, so they apply privileges and immunities but call it substantive due process and sometimes say it doesn't apply.<br /><br />Anyone who cares about original intent would be screaming to restore privileges and immunities, but fakes like Scalia can be relied upon not to consider it.Free Lunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272965187978654322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-73180798103108156242010-03-02T12:51:15.078-06:002010-03-02T12:51:15.078-06:00Excellent question. I haven't read the oral ar...Excellent question. I haven't read the oral argument transcript yet, but according to SCOTUSblog's <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/" rel="nofollow">Lyle Denniston</a>, who was in attendance, even the conservative Justices were skeptical of the P or I route as they were apparently concerned that it might open the door to recognition of even more "unenumerated" rights than would the due process analysis.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-23172760688639950292010-03-02T12:35:17.113-06:002010-03-02T12:35:17.113-06:00From the perspective of the average citizen, is th...From the perspective of the average citizen, is there a difference between the Due Process vs. Priviliges or Immunities route, or would incorporation by either appear the same?Jeremy R. Shownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com