MacDonald v Chicago - Open Thread

[mrokern]

Agreed. The alternative isn't too great.

Yes - and you want to talk about shredding the Constitution? I am pretty convinced that was where it started.

I was watching the History Detectives the other night and I learned about these guys: Copperheads. I think I am a fan. (And I think the racist brush they were tarred with was unfair)

Ok, I'm adding a topic to the case of beer discussion group, just based on my thoughts over this...

Can some things be so fundamentally wrong (e.g. slavery) that abridging freedom to abolish the offense is the more moral path?

[bstrawse]

Sounds like we need an after-work beer event where we can argue these things
B

[jgalt]

<snip> ... Can some things be so fundamentally wrong (e.g. slavery) that abridging freedom to abolish the offense is the more moral path?

Are you thinking of some specific abridgment of freedom that might be required, i.e. would be unavoidable, in order to abolish slavery (or some other fundamental wrong)...

I cannot think of any, but I might have a different definition for "freedom" than others here do...

Mmmm, beer...

[mrokern]

<snip> ... Can some things be so fundamentally wrong (e.g. slavery) that abridging freedom to abolish the offense is the more moral path?

Are you thinking of some specific abridgment of freedom that might be required, i.e. would be unavoidable, in order to abolish slavery (or some other fundamental wrong)...

I cannot think of any, but I might have a different definition for "freedom" than others here do...

Mmmm, beer...

Just thinking states' rights. We can agree that the Civil War in part was the federal government stepping over the wishes of states in order to correct what was perceived (including by me) to be a crime against humanity. Now yes, I know there were far more factors to it than that...but in part, it was quashing the freedom of self-determination for the states for some citizens in order to uphold freedom for other individuals who were NOT citizens at the time.

Translating that into modern times, could something similar happen re: illegal immigrants?

Newcastle for me, thanks...

DISCLAIMER: In no way should the above comments be read as supporting slavery. I'm merely trying to raise some interesting discussion points.

[DeanC]

Just thinking states' rights. We can agree that the Civil War in part was the federal government stepping over the wishes of states in order to correct what was perceived (including by me) to be a crime against humanity. Now yes, I know there were far more factors to it than that...but in part, it was quashing the freedom of self-determination for the states for some citizens in order to uphold freedom for other individuals who were NOT citizens at the time.

Translating that into modern times, could something similar happen re: illegal immigrants?

Newcastle for me, thanks...

DISCLAIMER: In no way should the above comments be read as supporting slavery. I'm merely trying to raise some interesting discussion points.

Clearly you are racist.

I wonder if maybe even the "crisis" of slavery wasn't exploited to accrete more power to the Federal government.

But you can't talk about that because then you hate the Blessed Abe and wish you had some darkies to pick your cotton and live in a shack out back.

Much in the same way that it's hard to be critical of Israel without someone saying your uncle was a guard at Auschwitz.

I mentioned the Copperheads earlier. One of their symbols was the copper Indianhead penny. Ever notice who's head replaced that?

[nyffman]

Just thinking states' rights. We can agree that the Civil War in part was the federal government stepping over the wishes of states in order to correct what was perceived (including by me) to be a crime against humanity. Now yes, I know there were far more factors to it than that...but in part, it was quashing the freedom of self-determination for the states for some citizens in order to uphold freedom for other individuals who were NOT citizens at the time.

Translating that into modern times, could something similar happen re: illegal immigrants?

Newcastle for me, thanks...

DISCLAIMER: In no way should the above comments be read as supporting slavery. I'm merely trying to raise some interesting discussion points.

Clearly you are racist.

I wonder if maybe even the "crisis" of slavery wasn't exploited to accrete more power to the Federal government.

But you can't talk about that because then you hate the Blessed Abe and wish you had some darkies to pick your cotton and live in a shack out back.

Much in the same way that it's hard to be critical of Israel without someone saying your uncle was a guard at Auschwitz.

I mentioned the Copperheads earlier. One of their symbols was the copper Indianhead penny. Ever notice who's head replaced that?

And just as clearly, you are a conspiracy theorist.

[1911fan]

Sounds like we need an after-work beer event where we can argue these things
B

There is one, most every tuesday night..... one tonight as well, linkie viewtopic.php?f=37&t=15232&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=plblark

[mrokern]

Sounds like we need an after-work beer event where we can argue these things
B

There is one, most every tuesday night..... one tonight as well, linkie viewtopic.php?f=37&t=15232&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=plblark

Too far from home and too late for some of us who work the next morning.

[plblark]

It's a holiday weekend man.

YEah, I work Friday too and this Friday I better be EARLY because I'm bringing the donuts

[plblark]

Alan Gura (Hwe who should NEVER have to buy another drink in his LIFE) has a great post up at SCOTUSBlog

emphasis mine

McDonald – A Victory for the Second Amendment
McDonald debate, Alan Gura Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 11:08 am

Alan Gura, a lawyer at Gura & Possessky, represented the prevailing party, Otis McDonald, in McDonald v. Chicago.

The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights – that much is the essential rule of McDonald v. City of Chicago. In the glass-two-drops-full department, opponents of the right to arms find refuge in statements recalling that the Second Amendment “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” We can all breathe easier knowing that airport metal detectors are going nowhere.

Of course, the First Amendment, a Bill of Rights provision with which the courts are vastly more experienced, does not imperil the overwhelming majority of speech regulations. For example, the police may ask those of us reveling in the McDonald decision to keep the party within our neighborhoods’ defined maximum noise levels. This much is just common-sense, confirmed by familiar time, place and manner standards. But just as the First Amendment will not tolerate the arbitrary licensing of political speech or punitive fees for expressive conduct, neither does the Second Amendment tolerate the gun prohibitionists’ agenda of frustrating the right to arms with excessive regulation. Politicians can justify any law. With respect to laws reaching some topics – including arms – the Constitution requires much more than paeans to the public good

The Second Amendment is itself a reasonable, common-sense gun law – it provides powerful security for a fundamental individual right. Governments contemplating gun regulations out of legitimate concern for public safety may occasionally be reminded of their limits by courts, but good faith actors should find today’s decision no more troubling than any other precedent effectuating basic constitutional limitations. On the other hand, politicians approaching gun regulation as a means of continuing their disagreement with the Constitution’s enumerated policy choice on the subject will discover that doing so carries a price taxpayers do not wish to spend – and ultimately achieves nothing.

Finally, the reasoning matters as much as the result, and on this score there is tremendous cause for celebration as well. Justice Alito’s plurality opinion firmly rejects turning the clock back to the days when Due Process incorporation was divorced from our unique American experience. Chicago’s contrary arguments would have opened the door to reversing the entire incorporation enterprise.

And critically, Justice Thomas’s opinion provides an excellent platform for restoring the Fourteenth Amendment’s original public meaning. That today’s result has a strong historical basis may have increased the plurality’s comfort level in utilizing substantive due process, but Justice Thomas demonstrated that concern for the constitutional text’s original public meaning was actually necessary to achieve the result. In 1868, the public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause commanded the support of a ratifying nation. After today, no one should doubt that it will yet command a majority of the Supreme Court.