This does not trivialize the Revolution, wherein the primary issue was representative government.
It represents the reluctance of the least democratic branch of government, the judicial, to set itself above the most democratic branch, the legislative. If there was not difference of opinion on the constitutional status of a gun reg, then we are not having this conversation. If there is, the question is whose opinion gets the benefit of doubts? I don't picture the Founders turning in their graves over this, at least not all of them. Steve Russell > ---------- > > Unfortunately, it reduces the "constitutional" rights subject to it to merely > trivial bumps in the road to legislative abolishment. I doubt most citizens > understand how large a portion of the federal "constitution" has no limiting effect > except on certifiably psychotic legislators. An empty right is no right at all. > > Why would anyone fight a revolutionary war in which thousands died and devote years > to crafting a WRITTEN constitution if in the end it only limited the schemes of > psychotics? I never understood how so-called constitutional lawyers could just > silently accept this. I suppose that's why the first amendment (which has teeth) is > where the action is in law journal articles. > > *********************************************************************** > Professor Joseph Olson Hamline University School of Law > tel. (651) 523-2142 St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-1284 > fax. (651) 523-2236 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/03 11:10AM >>> > > In practice, the test sometimes become "a > > non-psychotic can imagine a relationship." > > > Hehehe. That's as good a statement of the practice as I've heard. I'm > gonna swipe that, unless there is objection. And, yes (to continue the thread), > that is indeed what I meant. > > Steve Russell > >
