That would be Chicago's handgun ban. [Read]
Leave it to an "academic" like Lawrence Rosenthal to characterize insistence on recognition of individual unalienable rights as an "attack." And to assert the Second Amendment created a right...
With agenda-driven hucksters like this accorded the status of law professor, is it any wonder so many attorneys being churned out are so damned ignorant?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Calling them ignorant is doing them an unearned good service. The sonsofbitches can read. If they pretend to believe that shit, it is just that, pretense. No reasonable man can read the law, or the constitution or history and not know the truth. To gain a law degree, one must read those things.
Never attribute to ignorance what can be explained by evil intent when the abuse is consistent and ongoing. The truly ignorant would learn, that these people do not acknowledge the truth does not mean they don't know what it is. One cannot consistently violate the tenets of our society without knowing what they are. The operative word in the previous sentence is "consistently".
If ignorance was the true cause there be far more randomness in the outcomes.
Lawrence Rosenthal references McDonald and then goes on to say that the SCOTUS “… tells us only that the [14th] amendment protects rights that are ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’” And then asks, “Does the right to bear arms qualify?”
Actually I believe that the SCOTUS mistakenly, or very possibly malignantly, (contrary to the intent of congress and the states, as well as We The People) decided in Slaughterhouse and its so-called “progeny” that fundamental rights, inalienable rights, and “rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” are outside the purview of the 14th Amendment and that the 14th Amendment applies only to rights granted to persons as a condition of being United States citizens.
There seems to be a consensus that Slaughterhouse was wrongly decided. But, the SCOTUS has resisted any and all attempts to reconsider its decision. The SCOTUS has in the meantime adopted the “doctrine” of “incorporation” so that it has the self granted authority to decide whether a right has the blessing of the court and should be favored with incorporation into the 14th Amendment. During McDonald’s oral arguments, it appeared Mr. Gura was pretty well ignored by the court when he recommended it should take a second look at Slaughterhouse and reconsider the reasoning and intent behind the 14th Amendment.
Yes, Mr. Rosenthal, the right to keep and bear arms does definitely qualify as an inalienable, fundamental right that is implicit to the concept of ordered liberty which would indicate that the 2nd Amendment merely recognizes and promised to protect a right of free men.
The real question that needs to be asked is, “Are Americans still Free Men?
[W3]
Word verification: "cryings"
Post a Comment