Just like every gun right case prior to Heller had no application to personal gun rights to self-protection?
The Liberal Bar, as you say, has a consensus that the NBC language in MvH is dicta, but the Liberal Bar also had a consensus that the right to keep and bear arms was a right only of well regulated state militias and NOT an individual right. The Roberts Court disagreed. The Roberts Court is NOT the Liberal Bar.
Let's not also forget that the Liberal Bar thought that affirmative action was constitutional and not reverse discrimination. The Roberts Court disagreed.
Let's see what happens!
Just like every gun right case prior to Heller had no application to personal gun rights to self-protection?
No. Minor has no application here. As a legal proposition, it is not precedent; the ancestry of the parties had nothing to do with the result and Article II of the Constitution was not at issue. The commentary about parents is dicta.
No, nothing to do with Heller either. There was clearly a division on the question of the application of the Second Amendment. And the parties spent a great deal of money and effort setting up a sound factual case on which to present the legal issue.
And the politics are also instructive. A strong majority of Americans think the Second Amendment guarantees their right to keep and bear guns.
A strong majority of American's thought Zero should be President. If the law were clearly to the contrary, the Court would take an opportunity and hear the case and throw him out. It is clear that the Court does not think that is the state of the law and the facts.
There is another undercurrent in operation here. There isn't any doubt that the only issue is place of birth. And it appears to me that certain people--Roger Ailes; John Roberts; Dick Cheney; a number of others (relatives of some of the players); know that in fact, zero was born in the US. That is the primary reason no one is paying attention to this issue.
Now whether that knowledge is factually sound or not may be another question. We are entitled to pursue the issue to find out.
The Liberal Bar, as you say, has a consensus that the NBC language in MvH is dicta, but the Liberal Bar also had a consensus that the right to keep and bear arms was a right only of well regulated state militias and NOT an individual right.
No. You need to read more carefully--I didn't say anything about consensus or opinion. The parent language in Minor is dicta.
And wrong again, there was a clear division in the view of the Second Amendment and an in fact division among the circuits.
This partial posting from Donofrio totally blows that “it’s dicta” argument to hell.
“In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum:
“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”
The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/