Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (41526)	3/1/2010 12:46:25 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

And yet (somehow) the Courts thought otherwise for well over a century... and many of the authors themselves seemed to think otherwise?

To: TimF who wrote (41526)	3/1/2010 1:32:42 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

... The thrust of the legal arguments in the case is over how the Supreme Court might apply the Second Amendment to states and cities. In earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the court has done so by using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves. The court also has relied on that same clause — "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law" — in cases that established a woman's right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex. This is the approach the NRA favors. But many conservative and legal scholars — as well as the Chicago challengers — want the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law "which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." They argue this clause was intended as a broad guarantee of the civil rights of the former slaves, but that a Supreme Court decision in 1873 effectively blocked its use. Breathing new life into the "privileges or immunities" clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, these scholars say. This approach might enable challenges to arcane state laws that limit economic competition, said Clark M. Neily III of the public interest law firm Institute for Justice. He pointed to a Louisiana law that protects existing florists by requiring a license before someone can arrange or sell flowers. The licensing exam is graded by florists, he noted. "No reasonable person thinks that law has a legitimate purpose," Neily said. But he said, "Right now, once you get a law like this on the books, it's almost impossible to get rid of." The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521. On the Net: * Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: bradycenter.org * National Rifle Association: home.nra.org Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. google.com