Well, under the 14th, the Constitution says that states must equally protect all their citizens under law (that there are to be no protected classes), then the Supreme Court must rule against Michigan and for the student. And if I had sworn to uphold the Constitution, that's how I'd probably be forced to rule at the point of a gun, no matter how wrong I find the federal imposition. I pointed out the EEOC to note the result of the EEOC's presence in so many egregious violations of the EPC, not to demonstrate that it was Unconstitutional in and of itself.
However, I'd prefer to rule against the 14th itself, having found that the 13th, 14th and all subsequent amendments were imposed under duress, and that contracts imposed under duress, even social ones, are void under every legal precedent.
Suppose the Court incorporates the Second Amendment, ie, it now applies to all States. The Court also rules that the Second Amendment protects State militias, but affords no protection at all to individuals. How would that change the current legal status of the RKBA for any citizen?
First, it'd make the true arbiter of any RKBA the federal judiciary. Second, it'd mean the states could no longer infringe upon the second amendment as it applied to state (authorized?) militias without federal judiciary approval--and with it, states could do so. More dangerously, it'd mean that the state laws that are based on the 2nd Amendment to the federal Constitution could also be construed, with new federal precedent, to NOT bear out an individual right to bear arms. It'd mean that any individual state that had pressed to restrict individual gun ownership would now have its case settled in regard to indivuals. The Supreme Court could also decide what constitutes militias in that same decision, were it to so wish, and restrict them to the National Guard or whatever fully federally-authorized militias existed. That would be an ultimately fatal restriction to the 2nd. It would have killed any meaning, as the federal government would then be able to restrict RKBA absolutely.
Can you give me any scenario where a negative USSC decision on the Second Amendment would weaken the RKBA from where it now stands?
The USSC decision you mentioned above is a start. The Could certainly go the OTHER direction, and rule that the RKBA is an individual right guaranteed all...but as I said, I think that'd be winning a battle and losing a war. I'd prefer the USSC ruled that it has no power to interpret state actions regarding guns at all. I'm certainly not saying that the Court couldn't play a positive role right now in promoting the RKBA. But like it did in Plessy, once establishing that it may rule on the issue, it might again reverse itself.
To take it a step further, the SupCt could determine that the 2nd Amendment is part of that living document that died, and since international consensus is against it, it gets the Schiavo treatment. It could do that, and has done as much with the EPC in Grutter, obviously.
I haven't looked it up, but I'd bet OSHA was passed under the Commerce Clause using the substantial effects test. Not sure about EEOC, but my guess is that it was either under the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause. robertpaulsen says (and I think he's right) that every federal gun law was passed under the Commerce Clause.
Yep, aren't those wide Congressional powers granted with the best of intentions always eager to bite Americans on the ass?
Agree about the abuse under the EEOC. Do you think the EEOC is constitutional, according to your understanding of the Commerce Clause?
To take it a step further, the SupCt could determine that the 2nd Amendment is part of that living document that died, and since international consensus is against it, it gets the Schiavo treatment. It could do that, and has done as much with the EPC in Grutter, obviously.
Do you agree that such a decision, in and of itself, would make no change to any State or Federal laws concerning the RKBA?
If I'm not mistaken, there has never been an anti-gun law at any level of government which the USSC has voided on the basis of the Second Amendment. So far, all levels of government have the green light from the Court to ban private gun ownership.
I wrote: I haven't looked it up, but I'd bet OSHA was passed under the Commerce Clause using the substantial effects test. Not sure about EEOC, but my guess is that it was either under the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause.
Yep, aren't those wide Congressional powers granted with the best of intentions always eager to bite Americans on the ass?
Do we agree that the substantial effects doctrine is not justified by the Commerce Clause?