Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rethinking Original Intent
Wall St. Journal ^ | Jess Bravin

Posted on 03/17/2009 7:04:46 AM PDT by marktwain

After the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban last June, gun-rights advocates trained their sights on similar restrictions in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.

Last month, the National Rifle Association received ammunition from an unlikely source: the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal litigation shop. In a brief filed with the federal appeals court in Chicago, the center not only argued that gun ownership is a constitutional right, it also employed the legal method popularized by such conservative icons as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

That method is originalism, which seeks to apply the law today according to the text's meaning at the time of its adoption. This new twist on originalism is gaining momentum, and its proponents hope it will lead courts to take a more expansive view of individual rights. Although nurtured by liberals -- including some with close ties to the Obama administration -- some conservatives are backing the broader application of the originalist method.

----------------------------------cut--------------------

Alan Gura, the conservative lawyer who won the gun case at the Supreme Court and brought the challenges in Illinois, raised the Privileges or Immunities argument at the district court, only to see it rejected because of current precedent.

He welcomes his liberal allies. "This is an issue that actually unites the left and the right," he says.

"Where the left and right might diverge in the future might be the content of unenumerated rights," Mr. Gura says.

Conservatives would focus on undermining government restrictions on economic liberty such as environment and land-use laws, he says, while liberals might emphasize "social issues or gay rights."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; gura; heller
The slaughterhouse cases have been used as a means of subverting the Constitution for over a century. They should be overturned.
1 posted on 03/17/2009 7:04:46 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

‘Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban’

Orwellian spin.


2 posted on 03/17/2009 7:07:53 AM PDT by BGHater (Tyranny is always better organised than freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

—bflr—


3 posted on 03/17/2009 7:11:45 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It apears that this administration may allow us to keep the guns WITHOUT AMMUNITION.

I remember back in basic training at Fort know when they gave me my M-1, I can still remember iot’s serial number. They taught me to clean it, they taught me to operate it, but there was a bullet anywhere near, until we got to the firing range.

I remember the riots of 68 when troops were on duty in the streets of Washington and other cities, They had weapons, but no ammo.

The only time I can recall where troops were given ammo was at Kent State and look what happened there.

Guns are pretty useless without ammunition, and the people who run this country have figured that out./

Buy what you can now, it’s going to get scarce.


4 posted on 03/17/2009 7:15:39 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yes.


5 posted on 03/17/2009 7:17:56 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Our attention is being directed away from where it ought to be. With every legal step, we get further distracted.

The Declaration sits in judgment over governments, ours included. If our constitutional government fails to meet or becomes destructive of its proper purpose as described in the Declaration, that will be apparent.

The founding fathers believed the Constitution would secure for America a government which would meet the Declaration’s criterion. Were they right or wrong? That’s the question that needs asking.

But, for the most part, we’re not interested in that question. We don’t care about the proper function of government - not enough to hear the founders expound on the matter. Instead we pile layer after layer of legal doctrine upon their answer - the Constitution, constitutional law, precedent, popular opinion, etc.

The Constitution was the best attempt by wise men “to secure these rights”. Whether they - and we, with our addenda - succeeded or failed must be judged, not by debating various and sundry legeal doctrines such as “original intent”, but rather by whether our form of government meets the demands stated in the Declaration of Independence.

For, all the “unassailable” legal doctrines in the world don’t matter a hill o’beans if our unalienable rights are not secured by them.


6 posted on 03/17/2009 7:34:49 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Once again . . . READ The Federalist Papers to understand the thinking behind The Constitution.

I’ll have to take a break away from FR to get my paperback finished.

http://www.patriotship.us carries the FR Pajama Media Badge AND paperbacks of the above referenced ‘papers’ !!!!!


7 posted on 03/17/2009 8:46:11 AM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (The Constitution & Bill of Rights stand as a whole. Remove any part & nullify the whole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool; All

The Declaration of Independence is codified law in the USA.

Many on the left tend to ignore that little fact.

Our rights have been severely usurped over the past 150 or so years.

Lincoln may have had many redeeming qualities, however, he birthed a beastly federal government that now is in numerous direct violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

tahDeetz


8 posted on 03/17/2009 9:02:23 AM PDT by ebiskit (South Park Republican ( I see Red People ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
So.

"Progressive originalists" dismiss nearly everything in the original Constitution pertaining to the relationship between the fedgov and the states because, in their view, Amendments 13-15 effectively inverted the relationship?

Pheh.

Why don't we get it over with, and start calling the states "provinces"?

9 posted on 03/17/2009 9:17:44 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Two blogs for the price of none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson