----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Boucher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: [inbox] Re: Restrain your amazement
> These are more nits, IMO. Prof. Spitzer's main point stands: statements > regarding the second amendment that are made in a decision that is about > the fourth amendment are "dicta" and not binding. Actually, Spitzer didn't even call it dicta, but "speculation." Will some of the law professors here express an opinion? Yes, Rehnquist could have cut out all discussion of what "the people" means except with respect to the Fourth Amendment--but Rehnquist's citation of those other locations was part of his method of establishing that "the people" had a specific meaning, "a term of art," and wasn't just a random collection of words dribbled on the page. This hardly seems like dictum.
