Stefanie wrote:
You're the second one who's suggested that today, Rush Limbaugh being the first. ;)

Well, a stuck clock is right twice a day.

The humanitarian law project case is intellectually challenging. I haven't found a clear conviction on the matter easy to grasp on to. I'd have to do way more thinking and reading than I have time for.

Thomas is right because the P&I clause of the 14th was supposed to incorporate rights, and not the substantive due process clause that we've been relying on for decades.

For the record - I think Breyer might have a point that the founders did not intend for a fundamental, individual right to own firearms. The language and statement of intent in the amendment only makes sense when read in the context of unincorporated rights that could be upended by state laws. So how could that individual right be considered a "privilege" of citizenship incorporated by the 14th? Well, I think that the people living in the 1860's thought that the 14th amendment would incorporate the right to bear arms, as Thomas makes clear in his historical accounts. Maybe they were "wrong" about the technical impact of what they were doing, but I think that was their intent. I'm inclined to think that their intent should be upheld, but I still think I could be persuaded to change my view of this issue.

I also think that if we get to the other side of this we'll end up amending the constitution. I think you can convince 75% of the people in the country to support some tweaks to the language once the legal system stops muddying the issue and upholding unconstitutional regulations.

RE: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide.