An overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have signed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief supporting the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The amicus brief, bearing the signatures of 251 Members of Congress and 58 Senators, was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court today in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. [More]Here's the brief.
Well, well, well...
Guess who didn't sign it?
8 comments:
A: Someone who doesn't want to be reelected.
To be fair, Rep Ron Paul didn't sign it either, since he probably sees no constitutional point
I forgot all about her!
At least NJ got three people, and the entire NJ legislature is more questionable on gun rights than she ever could be.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I can't wait to see what this is all about tomorrow:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/11/mccarthy-and-gillibrand-settle.html
glad to see the NRA is trying to un-f' itself but i would really appreciate some more details on the actual content of the brief. is mr. hardy on the case?
When I have time I'll compare the signers to the AYE votes on fedmed...
The 2nd Amendment shouldn't have to be "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment.
The wording of the 14th and the debates surrounding the amendment are very clear as to what the folks who wrote it intended. Some will try to have us believe that "immunities and privileges" mean something different from "rights". Hardy and others have pretty well proven that at the time of the 14th's ratification the terms were synonymous.
The SCOTUS at the time of the Slaughterhouse cases bowed to political pressure and determined that the 14th wasn't intended to make any radical changes in whether the states needed to pay attention to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights in particular. Contrary to what the legislature and the States intended and clearly stated.
The SCOTUS introduced the idea of "incorporation' so that august body would be able to hold the power to determine what the Federal government, the state legislatures and the people "really meant".
I had hoped to see Dr. Paul's name in the signature list on this amicus brief but I am neither surprised nor disappointed that it wasn't there.
[W-III]
I've asked Rep Paul's media rep for a statement. We will see.
It's a debate that ought to get more visibility.
Post a Comment