Betsy's Page
HOMEAdvance your career by earning a masters degree
online.
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
Advance your career by earning a masters degree
online.
The truth about Avesil
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
The truth about Avesil
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Supreme Court rulings today
The invaluable Scotusblog is liveblogging the decisions. So far, the Court has struck down the Millionaire's Amendment to Campaign Finance Reform.
Excellent.
The decision is here.
They've saved the DC guns case to last. Tension mounts....
UPDATE: Scotusblog reports that, in a 5:4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's right to own guns and affirmed the lower court ruling striking down the DC gun ban. Scalia wrote the majority opinion and Stevens the dissent, which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter joined. There are no separate concurring opinions, although Breyer has a separate dissent to which the other three dissenters also joined.
Here is a link to the decision in D.C. v. Heller.
Scalia's opinion begins with an analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment and the prefatory clause concerning the necessity of a well-regulated militia. The majority opinion upholds the idea that this confers a right to individuals to own guns, a right violated by the overreaching approach of the District of Columbia statute. But Scalia does acknowledge that this right, like other rights in the Bill of Rights, is not unlimited and can be subject to reasonable limitations. This ruling does not strike down other limitations that have been upheld in the past such as limitations on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill or bans on carrying firearms into places like schools or government buildings.
The majority opinion did not clarify whether or not the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.
UPDATE: I just finished reading Scalia's opinion. It's a masterful exposition using linguistics, history, and legal precedent to establish what the Second Amendment meant at the time and throughout history. He concludes,“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”Slash.
Although the interest in this case has been huge, it strikes me that the decision is relatively narrow. The case applies only to the District of Columbia law and left undecided whether this would apply to a state or local statute. He allows for reasonable restrictions. And since the District's handgun ban was the most sweeping in the country, we'll have to wait and see if other restrictions, less sweeping, would be struck down. So while gun rights advocates will be happy to have their view of the Amendment as referring to individual rights upheld, gun control advocates will be happy to see that the ability to limit gun use and ownership of certain types of guns has also been upheld.
One of Howard Bashman's readers has found an amusing typo on the first page of Scalia's opinion.
I can also see why it took from last Monday night when the dissents were due at the Court until today for the opinion to be delivered. Perhaps it took that long for Justice Scalia to respond and often ridicule the arguments in the dissents by Justice Stevens and Breyer. Scalia has a refutation of their arguments on almost every page of his opinion. And, at times, he is quite scathing.
UPDATE: I see that Orin Kerr over at Volokh agrees that the decision is quite narrow.t recognizes the individual right (citing, by my count, 3 articles by Eugene and one by Randy, not that we academics count such things), but does not resolve the degrees of scrutiny, does not address incorporation, and indicates (without establishing) that traditional gun restriction laws are valid.Eugene Volokh points to a footnote that notes that the 1875 case which ruled out incorporation of the Second Amendment in United States v. Cruikshank also ruled out incorporation of the First Amendment, a position that the Court no longer holds. So those hoping that the Court will incorporate the Second Amendment can perhaps hope that a case involving a state law which this case did not.
UPDATE: The NRA plans to file suit against Chicago's handgun restrictions. We'll see what Obama thinks about such a suit against the law in his own hometown. And such a case would settle the incorporation question.
Jim Geraghty points out Obama's wavering on the Second Amendment question. Obama has a history of supporting rigid gun control efforts and Geraghty points to the lie, as determined by Factcheck.org that Obama uttered in a debate with Clinton when he denied that his handwriting was on a questionnaire supporting a ban on handguns. Now his campaign is saying that a campaign statement to the Chicago Tribune last Fall saying that Obama believed the D.C. gun ban was constitutional was "inartful" because the Senator isn't taking a stand on the case. As Geraghty concludes,All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.Labels: Supreme Court
0 comments
Comments:
The invaluable Scotusblog is liveblogging the decisions. So far, the Court has struck down the Millionaire's Amendment to Campaign Finance Reform.
Excellent.
The decision is here.
They've saved the DC guns case to last. Tension mounts....
UPDATE: Scotusblog reports that, in a 5:4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's right to own guns and affirmed the lower court ruling striking down the DC gun ban. Scalia wrote the majority opinion and Stevens the dissent, which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter joined. There are no separate concurring opinions, although Breyer has a separate dissent to which the other three dissenters also joined.
Here is a link to the decision in D.C. v. Heller.
Scalia's opinion begins with an analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment and the prefatory clause concerning the necessity of a well-regulated militia. The majority opinion upholds the idea that this confers a right to individuals to own guns, a right violated by the overreaching approach of the District of Columbia statute. But Scalia does acknowledge that this right, like other rights in the Bill of Rights, is not unlimited and can be subject to reasonable limitations. This ruling does not strike down other limitations that have been upheld in the past such as limitations on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill or bans on carrying firearms into places like schools or government buildings.
The majority opinion did not clarify whether or not the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.
UPDATE: I just finished reading Scalia's opinion. It's a masterful exposition using linguistics, history, and legal precedent to establish what the Second Amendment meant at the time and throughout history. He concludes,
Although the interest in this case has been huge, it strikes me that the decision is relatively narrow. The case applies only to the District of Columbia law and left undecided whether this would apply to a state or local statute. He allows for reasonable restrictions. And since the District's handgun ban was the most sweeping in the country, we'll have to wait and see if other restrictions, less sweeping, would be struck down. So while gun rights advocates will be happy to have their view of the Amendment as referring to individual rights upheld, gun control advocates will be happy to see that the ability to limit gun use and ownership of certain types of guns has also been upheld.
One of Howard Bashman's readers has found an amusing typo on the first page of Scalia's opinion.
I can also see why it took from last Monday night when the dissents were due at the Court until today for the opinion to be delivered. Perhaps it took that long for Justice Scalia to respond and often ridicule the arguments in the dissents by Justice Stevens and Breyer. Scalia has a refutation of their arguments on almost every page of his opinion. And, at times, he is quite scathing.
UPDATE: I see that Orin Kerr over at Volokh agrees that the decision is quite narrow.
UPDATE: The NRA plans to file suit against Chicago's handgun restrictions. We'll see what Obama thinks about such a suit against the law in his own hometown. And such a case would settle the incorporation question.
Jim Geraghty points out Obama's wavering on the Second Amendment question. Obama has a history of supporting rigid gun control efforts and Geraghty points to the lie, as determined by Factcheck.org that Obama uttered in a debate with Clinton when he denied that his handwriting was on a questionnaire supporting a ban on handguns. Now his campaign is saying that a campaign statement to the Chicago Tribune last Fall saying that Obama believed the D.C. gun ban was constitutional was "inartful" because the Senator isn't taking a stand on the case. As Geraghty concludes,
0 comments
The invaluable Scotusblog is liveblogging the decisions. So far, the Court has struck down the Millionaire's Amendment to Campaign Finance Reform.
Excellent.
The decision is here.
They've saved the DC guns case to last. Tension mounts....
UPDATE: Scotusblog reports that, in a 5:4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld an individual's right to own guns and affirmed the lower court ruling striking down the DC gun ban. Scalia wrote the majority opinion and Stevens the dissent, which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter joined. There are no separate concurring opinions, although Breyer has a separate dissent to which the other three dissenters also joined.
Here is a link to the decision in D.C. v. Heller.
Scalia's opinion begins with an analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment and the prefatory clause concerning the necessity of a well-regulated militia. The majority opinion upholds the idea that this confers a right to individuals to own guns, a right violated by the overreaching approach of the District of Columbia statute. But Scalia does acknowledge that this right, like other rights in the Bill of Rights, is not unlimited and can be subject to reasonable limitations. This ruling does not strike down other limitations that have been upheld in the past such as limitations on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill or bans on carrying firearms into places like schools or government buildings.
The majority opinion did not clarify whether or not the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.
UPDATE: I just finished reading Scalia's opinion. It's a masterful exposition using linguistics, history, and legal precedent to establish what the Second Amendment meant at the time and throughout history. He concludes,
“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”Slash.
Although the interest in this case has been huge, it strikes me that the decision is relatively narrow. The case applies only to the District of Columbia law and left undecided whether this would apply to a state or local statute. He allows for reasonable restrictions. And since the District's handgun ban was the most sweeping in the country, we'll have to wait and see if other restrictions, less sweeping, would be struck down. So while gun rights advocates will be happy to have their view of the Amendment as referring to individual rights upheld, gun control advocates will be happy to see that the ability to limit gun use and ownership of certain types of guns has also been upheld.
One of Howard Bashman's readers has found an amusing typo on the first page of Scalia's opinion.
I can also see why it took from last Monday night when the dissents were due at the Court until today for the opinion to be delivered. Perhaps it took that long for Justice Scalia to respond and often ridicule the arguments in the dissents by Justice Stevens and Breyer. Scalia has a refutation of their arguments on almost every page of his opinion. And, at times, he is quite scathing.
UPDATE: I see that Orin Kerr over at Volokh agrees that the decision is quite narrow.
t recognizes the individual right (citing, by my count, 3 articles by Eugene and one by Randy, not that we academics count such things), but does not resolve the degrees of scrutiny, does not address incorporation, and indicates (without establishing) that traditional gun restriction laws are valid.Eugene Volokh points to a footnote that notes that the 1875 case which ruled out incorporation of the Second Amendment in United States v. Cruikshank also ruled out incorporation of the First Amendment, a position that the Court no longer holds. So those hoping that the Court will incorporate the Second Amendment can perhaps hope that a case involving a state law which this case did not.
UPDATE: The NRA plans to file suit against Chicago's handgun restrictions. We'll see what Obama thinks about such a suit against the law in his own hometown. And such a case would settle the incorporation question.
Jim Geraghty points out Obama's wavering on the Second Amendment question. Obama has a history of supporting rigid gun control efforts and Geraghty points to the lie, as determined by Factcheck.org that Obama uttered in a debate with Clinton when he denied that his handwriting was on a questionnaire supporting a ban on handguns. Now his campaign is saying that a campaign statement to the Chicago Tribune last Fall saying that Obama believed the D.C. gun ban was constitutional was "inartful" because the Senator isn't taking a stand on the case. As Geraghty concludes,
All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.
Labels: Supreme Court
Comments:
Post a Comment
