McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations

[twyacht]

Alito also noted law abiding minorities, in high crime neighborhoods, where owning a firearm to defend yourself and family, would benefit the community, is also an obligation covered by the 2nd Amend.

Due to the lack of elected officials to provide adequate police, and stability.

(paraphrasing), heard it on Schnittshow.com radio.

I caught Limbaugh's analysis as it relates to the 39th Congress, and the 14th Amend.

Wish Alito was 15 years younger

Its not a living document, you ass hat!

Thank you eric, saves me some time posting the same thing.

[PegLeg45]

Its not a living document, you ass hat!

Thank you eric, saves me some time posting the same thing.

+1
That whole 'living document' thing is what got the country into most of this mess to begin with.

[fightingquaker13]

+1
That whole 'living document' thing is what got the country into most of this mess to begin with.

Jeeze, you use two little words..., actually, I think we are on the same page(give or take a few, but still in the same chapter anyway). I just used a very academic and precise version of the Living Constitution thing, not the one that gets thrown around in politics. The definion is below.

Is it dead Jim? Or do I use a oujia board to summon the ghost of Madison, or the various state legislators that ratified it? Do I just read the words like a fundamentalist? The answer is both of the above. A justice should interpret based on the text (first and foremost), the intent, (only secondarily because I don't  KNOW what the framers thought, I do know what they wrote down and got passed) , thirdly the precedents applied by other courts reviewing the same issues, and finally, guided by this, their own judgement over how to apply old priciples to new issues (such as the interstate commerce clause and the net). Thus it is a living document, but not in sense of "you make it up as you go along and 5 is a bigger number than 4"  as you seem to be implying. If that is what the term "living Constitution" means to you, it was not what I meant at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll try to avoid  terms that have become politicized. Its kind of like "Born Again". It used to just be a theological term. Now its gotten all wrapped up in politics which is too bad.
FQ13

[ericire12]

And what exactly would you say to the ass hat at the airline customer service counter if they said "well that passengers bill of rights is a living document"? You would lose your mind!

It's not a living document. It's our contract with govt

If u don't like it, then change it... But until then you better take it for what it is and not read b/t the lines!

[fightingquaker13]

And what exactly would you say to the ass hat at the airline customer service counter if they said "well that passengers bill of rights is a living document"? You would lose your mind!

It's not a living document. It's our contract with govt

if u don't like it, then change it... Bit until then your beter taken it for what it is and not read b/t the lines!

In case you weren't paing attention to the case eric, McDonald IS a case of the Court reading between the lines. It IS an example of the Living Constitution (used in the narrow sense of the term, and henceforth never to be used by me again). First the document is vague. It was written this way on purpose to gain enough support to pass it. Its first big test was in 1805 in Baron v Baltimore. Here the Court had to decide if the BOR applied to the states or just the feds. Well, it doesn't say in the document, it could have been decided either way. The justices "read between the lines" and saw that the document generally restricted the feds not the states, so they said no, just the feds, the states have their own BORs and they should govern state conduct. Fast forward to today. The Court overcame this 205 year old precedent by applying the 14th ammendment. Well, what did the authors of the 14th ammendment INTEND? To overturn local gun laws? Hardly. Was the intent of these laws to discriminate based on race? No. But the current court "read between the lines", looked at precedent and essentially said that the due process clause should incorporate the 2A. If an original intent standard had been applied, McDonald wouldn't have gotten a writ of certiorari, much less won. As I said, its the text first, intent second, precedent third and making a judgement call since you're the guy on the spot, last. There is no such thing as an "objective" call on any case complicated enough to make it to the Court. Its not a math problem. There are better and worse opinions, but they call them opinions for a reason.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

I've never been a Scalia fan, but I've always found him entertaining. Today, he was both right and funnier than usual. That left handed whip song he sent to Stevens is classic. "Sensitivity" indeed! The Constitution is a living document. It is however, a freaking document! Justices are not free to ignore the words on the page and act as tribunes using their own wisdom to write the law of the land. That is as bad as the original intent idiots. If that were the case poor Otis still wouldn't have had his gun as the framers of the 14th ammendment didn't intend it to anything more than cover discrimination based on race. Still, there are those pesky words on a page, "shall not be infringed" and "due process". Hang it your ass Stevens. The only bad news is that the Conservative justices still ignore the "privledges and immunities" clause. That really is a defeat for us and every other group that wants to limit state power. I am happy with the decision today. That said, don't be too happy. It is a tactical, not a strategic victory. Until the the privledges and immunities clause is given teeth, and until the 2A is held to be a "fundamental right", rather than just a "substantive guarantee" we have just won a beach head. Its still a long way to Berlin.
FQ13 who will still open a very nice bottle of wine tonight and say some good things about Alito. I will then curse him for being a statist at heart who could not bring himself to write the words "fundamental right", because if he had, it would have been game over.

I guess you did not read the opinion of the court because it states that the 2A is a "fundamental right" several times.  Which may well automatically kick in the strict scrutiny test as well.

[ericire12]

In case you weren't paing attention to the case eric, McDonald IS a case of the Court reading between the lines. It IS an example of the Living Constitution (used in the narrow sense of the term, and henceforth never to be used by me again). First the document is vague. It was written this way on purpose to gain enough support to pass it. Its first big test was in 1805 in Baron v Baltimore. Here the Court had to decide if the BOR applied to the states or just the feds. Well, it doesn't say in the document, it could have been decided either way. The justices "read between the lines" and saw that the document generally restricted the feds not the states, so they said no, just the feds, the states have their own BORs and they should govern state conduct. Fast forward to today. The Court overcame this 205 year old precedent by applying the 14th ammendment. Well, what did the authors of the 14th ammendment INTEND? To overturn local gun laws? Hardly. Was the intent of these laws to discriminate based on race? No. But the current court "read between the lines", looked at precedent and essentially said that the due process clause should incorporate the 2A. If an original intent standard had been applied, McDonald wouldn't have gotten a writ of certiorari, much less won. As I said, its the text first, intent second, precedent third and making a judgement call since you're the guy on the spot, last. There is no such thing as an "objective" call on any case complicated enough to make it to the Court. Its not a math problem. There are better and worse opinions, but they call them opinions for a reason.
FQ13

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Your liberal nuance is wrong again. It didnt really take reading between the lines to figure this one out. A first day law student could have gotten it right.

This whole "living document" crap is just liberal code speak that means activist judges are fine and that social justice is perfectly exceptable.

[fightingquaker13]

I guess you did not read the opinion of the court because it states that the 2A is a "fundamental right" several times.  Which may well automatically kick in the strict scrutiny test as well.

Then I stand very cheerfully corrected Haz! I just read the news reports and the quotes they had didn't include anything more than a "substantive guarantee". Thats a high bar, but not as high as "fundamental right". That does indeed (mostly) trigger the "strict scrutiny" test.  I owe Alito an apology. I intend to start reading the whole opinion tonight or tommorow. A very, very happy day indeed if that was what the opinion said, as now its just a matter of arguing over the details.
FQ13

[fightingquaker13]

Your liberal nuance is wrong again. It didnt really take reading between the lines to figure this one out. A first day law student could have gotten it right.
Quote
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Indeed, but that would put them a day ahead of you. The first day law student would know that  the case was decided on the due process clause, not the pivileges and immunities clause. That particular clause has sadly  been a dead letter since the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. Here the Court ruled that the privileges and immunities clause did not restrict the police powers of the state. Conservative justices including especially Scalia have defended this decision fiercely as they see it as a bastion of states rights and a way to avoid substantive, rather than just procedural, due process claims. Its a crock IMHO, but thats their claim. If you want me to give you the lecture for day two, I'll be happy to.
FQ13 who is going straight to hell for that post,. Sorry Eric, but you did walk into it.
PS Here's Alitos dismissal of the Privileges and Immunities clause from the Hot Air piece you posted. (nice post BTW, thanks).

Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 10–11.

[C.O.T.U.S.]

Sadly this will change nothing in Chicago as it changed virtually nothing in D.C.  This is however a great peg for future cases to rest on.  This is the the second lap  of a long race till politicians finally get thier arses sued into doing what the founders wanted in the first place.

I hope for more than politics as usual but I doubt we wil get it.