> Scott wrote: > > So...using this logic, fighting a state law because its > 'unconstitutional' would be frivolous since, unless I misunderstood, > states can make laws that infringe on the rights guaranteed by the > Constitution. That is not just a slippery slope, but a damned steep > one. >
Well, pre-incorporation. The whole idea starting in the early 1900s was to use the 14th amendment's Due Process clause to make the rights in the Constitution binding to the states. And so they have. As these cases come up, incorporation gets them to all of the states. What Judges Posner and Easterbrook are saying in this case (in one part of their ruling) is that state's rights is an older concept than the right to carry any type of weapon. Therefore they suggest the 2nd amendment NOT be incorporated. The interesting thing to me is that here you have conservative judges lobbying against incorporation which is the very essence of the whole "judicial activism" argument: rule like a robot would in reading the Constitution. In this case that would mean upholding a state's right to ban guns. So yet again we'll get to see the Republicans test their talking points. And since their talking points - for 20 years - have been based on political expediency with morons and Christian extremists, I'm 100% confident they'll fail their own test. There aren't even any Republicans that can articulate what their principles even are save a few people like Colin Powell, and he's apparently not in the party any longer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:298181 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
