Should the SCOTUS read the 2A out of the Constitution, tell me how that bodes for the rest of the Bill of Rights?
No kidding. But then again, the Bill of Rights isn't looking too healthy these days...
I'm worried about the possibility of a bad precedent from
Heller... consider
Wickard and
Raich, or
Kelo which IMO have done incredible damage to freedom in this country. Then there are the legal fictions of executive orders, executive privilege, and "state secrets"...
The courts are all too willing to give the federal government powers that it
shouldn't have. This is nothing new, but IMO it has gotten worse in recent times... see, for example,
this list. IMO the conservative justices are just as bad as the liberals in this.
Anyway, regarding
Heller... consider a scenario where the Court decides for an individual right, but applies a rational basis test or otherwise weasels out of actually protecting an individual right (as it did in
Kelo for example). In that case, what have we really won?
This is dangerous territory; the
Heller briefs are wonderful and amazing, but I'm still worried because the Court has
many avenues to "read the 2A out of the Constitution," and it has a shown a propensity to make bad decisions which grant undue powers to the government.