The "fun" begins today.
The McDonald Merits brief is due to be filed today. Then within the next 10 days, all the amicus briefs will be due.
Anyone think there will be as many amici as there were for Heller?
Yes.
The "fun" begins today.
The McDonald Merits brief is due to be filed today. Then within the next 10 days, all the amicus briefs will be due.
Anyone think there will be as many amici as there were for Heller?
Anyone think there will be as many amici as there were for Heller?
Actually, it looks like there's been a delay. According to Gura's site, the deadline for the respondent brief has been pushed back to 12/30.The McDonald Merits brief is due to be filed today. Then within the next 10 days, all the amicus briefs will be due.
(...) today we received word that the Brady Center will be filing a brief… in support of neither party. That would have to be filed by the deadline for our amici, which is November 23.
Yes that pushes back the Respondents Brief and the Petitioners Reply Brief, but it does nothing to the Merits Brief, which is still due by the end of the day, today.Tom Servo said:Actually, it looks like there's been a delay. According to Gura's site, the deadline for the respondent brief has been pushed back to 12/30.
You may be right. Though I expect them to claim that the Heller decision incorrectly "up-ended" over one hundred years of court decisions that go back to before the civil war. Then drag out the old state's "rights" argument of militia in about 4 paragraphs of historical rationale, just before declaring that the [federalized] National Guard is today's militia. Then I expect him to engage in some cost-benefit doubletalk, toss out some numbers of people harmed by guns and claim Congress has a right to pass laws or delegate regulatory powers to some bureaucratic branch like the Consumer Protection folks. It will not argue the merits of the right or it's history unless it's a passing mention that "everyone back then knew..." therefore our opinion is assumed to be correct.Tom Servo said:I'm very curious to see how Henigan tries to spin things. I expect that he'll continue to bemoan the idea that the Court somehow "found" or "created" the right to keep and bear arms from whole cloth in the Heller decision. He'll likely refer to "activist" jurisprudence a few times as well. Then he'll chase his tail a bit, and when he runs out of ideas, he'll beg the Court to consider the "consequences" of their ruling. Think of the children and all.
Heller disrupted a bit of precedent, sure, but it was bad precedent and needed to be up-ended.You may be right. Though I expect them to claim that the Heller decision incorrectly "up-ended" over one hundred years of court decisions that go back to before the civil war.
Just because Slaughterhouse attracted five votes doesn't make it good law.A doctrine originally celebrated for defying the Constitution, and which cannot seriously be defended against the overwhelming weight of text and history, must not be allowed to continue depriving Americans
of their civil rights. p. 58
For, whenever a question arises between the society at large, and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.
Hey, no guts, no gloryWow, I am surprised that they spent only 6 pages on the selective incorporation via due process argument. The majority of the brief argues for overturning Slaughterhouse.... they really went all out for it
Reelin Rod, thanks for one of the best "first posts" I've ever seen! Please stick around. In answer to your questions:What are privileges and immunities? Why, sir, all the rights we have under the laws of the country are embraced under the definition of privileges and immunities. The right to vote is a privilege. The right to marry is a privilege. The right to contract is a privilege. The right to be a juror is a privilege. The right to be a judge or President of the United States is a privilege.
While the amendments to the Constitution of the United States were primarily intended to be restrictive upon the powers of the General Government, and not the Legislatures of the several States–yet they are "declaratory" of great principles of civil liberty, which neither the national nor the State governments can infringe.
In my view, the 14th says nothing about incorporating the USBOR, and it wasn't properly ratified, so it seems like an incredible stretch to say that it is the will of the people that we have incorporation of the USBOR.I understand, and to a certain extent even sympathize with Hugh Damright's concern about incorporation's impact on federalism. But it is not the place of the courts to decide that the constitutional principle of federalism should override the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, the federal constitution is the product of the voice of the people as expressed through Article V.
Some do ... but wasn't that the same speech where Bingham said that the essence of our frame of government is "centralized power / decentralized administration", and that the States were bound to abide by the USBOR because of a speech by Daniel Webster? Personally, I think Bingham was full of nonsense.Does anyone give weight to the explanation Bingham gave to Congress?
I don't think so ... prior to the 14th there was a Freedmens Bureau Bill which was modified to regard the RKBA, and it was not added to the list of civil rights (which might imply incorporation) but rather it was added to the "equal protection" clause ... I am not aware that any States had to rewrite their Constitutions to conform to the Second Amendment, but rather they had to end discriminatory gun laws.Is there any incorporation implication in the southern states with discriminatory language (i.e., "free white men") in their constitution's RKBA provisions being forced to rewrite them to conform with the federal 2nd?
Possibly, if we were talking about a State disarming all of its citizens ... but on the other hand, I think a republican form of government has police powers and gun laws.Essentially, the federal government can not allow one state to act in an un-republican fashion, such as disarming its citizens. Could that case be made?
But the object, the P&I associated with US citizenship, do not include all of these rights. If they did, then Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution would mean that Virginians would have to let citizens from other States vote in our elections, serve on our juries, run for office, and so on. And if the right to be President is a privilege of US Citizenship, that would seem to mean that all US Citizens have a right to run for President, which isn't true. It appears to me that Andrew Jackson Rogers was confused, and that Gura must know better.What are privileges and immunities? Why, sir, all the rights we have under the laws of the country are embraced under the definition of privileges and immunities. The right to vote is a privilege. The right to marry is a privilege. The right to contract is a privilege. The right to be a juror is a privilege. The right to be a judge or President of the United States is a privilege.
Really? When? Last time I was in New York, I could not carry a gun, lest I run afoul of the Sullivan Act, a law that has the phrase "swarthy immigrants" in its text.I am not aware that any States had to rewrite their Constitutions to conform to the Second Amendment, but rather they had to end discriminatory gun laws.
Sure, because Gura just went to Cornell and Georgetown. Those are practically community colleges. He got all his notoriety for arguing some gun case or other when he was in his 30's. It's easy to wonder if he has any clue what he's doing.It appears to me that Andrew Jackson Rogers was confused, and that Gura ought to know better.
Hugh, you really haven't read Corfield v. Coryell. I can tell, because of the way you phrased the above.Hugh said:... then Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution would mean that Virginians would have to let citizens from other States vote in our elections, serve on our juries, run for office, and so on.
I said that Gura ought to know better, but really what I mean to say is that he must know better. I wasn't questioning his education or intelligence but rather I was questioning the integrity of his argument as I understand it (I haven't even read the thing I was just responding to a post). I think Gura must know that Roger's definition of "privileges or immunities" was inappropriate and, as I think I just demonstrated, untenable.Gura just went to Cornell and Georgetown
IIRC, Washington said that States could regulate the rights in question, for the common good ... but the point is that Article IV, Section 2 says that the States cannot regulate the P&I so as to discriminate against citizens from other States ... so while Washington may have said that a State can regulate the right to vote, if they can regulate it so as to exclude citizens from other States, then how is it a P&I under Article IV, Section 2?States could say, which type of citizen could serve on a jury. Which type of citizen could vote in its elections or even be elected.
Again, if the right to run for President is a P&I of US Citizenship, then that would seem to mean that all US Citizens have a right to run for President, and that is not true (because the Constitution says what type of citizen can be President) ... for example, someone from another country may move here and become a citizen of the US, but they still do not have a right to be President, so how is the right to run for President a P&I of US Citizenship?Add to this, that the Constitution itself is explicit on what type of citizen can be President