Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Abundy
Your "statement" of the law doesn't take into account that there are three different methods of analysis which depend on the type of individual right that a law seeks to regulate.

Red herring and non sequitur. Go, baby!

246 posted on 10/21/2007 8:47:23 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]


To: Mojave
Red herring and non sequitur. Go, baby!

Wrong @sshat, a correction to RP's mis-statement of the law.

250 posted on 10/21/2007 8:50:49 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: Mojave
His statement

But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may write laws which "reasonably regulate" a constitutional right provided there is a compelling government interest.

gives the impression that all a law must do to regulate a constitutional right is be reasonable.

That is either a flat out lie on his part (most likely scenario) or comes from a very vulgar understanding of constitutional law. It is pretty clear from both his and your posts that neither of you understand that area of law.

254 posted on 10/21/2007 8:55:16 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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