Tuesday, July 01, 2008
A new twist on medical tourism: outsourcing your pregnancy to India. Slate video with that annoying Prudie person, but the idea's an interesting one.
Elsewhere, the Volokh conspiracy, one of the tentacles of the Constitution in Exile octopi, continues to deny that there's any CIE movement, so I respond in the comments:
Of course there's a constitution in exile movement. Some of the visible parts of the iceberg include Cato, IJ, Gun Owners of America, the Federalist Society, FIJA, ACLF.
The goals of the movement include rehabilitating the First Amendment re campaign finance and hands off the internet, the 2nd, to undo the myth of Miller, the 3rd, the 4th, in terms of unwarranted suspicionless administrative searches such as at airports, and restoring property rights as a basis for 4th A standing, the 5th, to incorporate Richard Epstein's view of takings, the 6th, any counsel you want, the 7th, fully informed juries, the 8th, stop jailing drug users, the Ninth, the 10th, the 13th, the P&I clause of the 14th, and so forth. Linda Greenhouse recently called Heller Scalia's most important case ever, and Heller is an obvious touchdown for the CIE movement, as to who brung it, its method, its result, and its followup. Heller will embolden the movement to try to bring other parts of the text of the constitution back from exile. One of the fallouts from Heller is that litigants and judges may take a whole new look at state rtkba provisions, and start to give them more teeth.
Me to the ABA
http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamendmentissues/home.shtml
You folks write:
The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms.
9 Supreme Court justices disagreed with you in Heller. All the justices found the 2nd protects an individual right, although they split 5-4 on the scope of the right. You might want to update your page.
This position by the ABA is why I resigned from the ABA 14 years ago. I've sworn to uphold the constitution, and by denying that the 2nd A means what it means, the ABA has been working to subvert the constitution, so it wouldn't have been ethical for me to send them any dues.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
Elsewhere, the Volokh conspiracy, one of the tentacles of the Constitution in Exile octopi, continues to deny that there's any CIE movement, so I respond in the comments:
Of course there's a constitution in exile movement. Some of the visible parts of the iceberg include Cato, IJ, Gun Owners of America, the Federalist Society, FIJA, ACLF.
The goals of the movement include rehabilitating the First Amendment re campaign finance and hands off the internet, the 2nd, to undo the myth of Miller, the 3rd, the 4th, in terms of unwarranted suspicionless administrative searches such as at airports, and restoring property rights as a basis for 4th A standing, the 5th, to incorporate Richard Epstein's view of takings, the 6th, any counsel you want, the 7th, fully informed juries, the 8th, stop jailing drug users, the Ninth, the 10th, the 13th, the P&I clause of the 14th, and so forth. Linda Greenhouse recently called Heller Scalia's most important case ever, and Heller is an obvious touchdown for the CIE movement, as to who brung it, its method, its result, and its followup. Heller will embolden the movement to try to bring other parts of the text of the constitution back from exile. One of the fallouts from Heller is that litigants and judges may take a whole new look at state rtkba provisions, and start to give them more teeth.
Me to the ABA
http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamendmentissues/home.shtml
You folks write:
The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms.
9 Supreme Court justices disagreed with you in Heller. All the justices found the 2nd protects an individual right, although they split 5-4 on the scope of the right. You might want to update your page.
This position by the ABA is why I resigned from the ABA 14 years ago. I've sworn to uphold the constitution, and by denying that the 2nd A means what it means, the ABA has been working to subvert the constitution, so it wouldn't have been ethical for me to send them any dues.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
Comments:
Post a Comment
