Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-20-2009, 8:06 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default SCOTUSBlog: Slaughterhouse overruled?

I find myself totally astonished this hasn't been posted already.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/might-i...use-overruled/
Quote:
Might it happen? Slaughterhouse overruled?

Posted By Lyle Denniston On July 20, 2009 @ 5:30 am In New Filings | Comments Disabled

Analysis

For generations, lawyers, judges and constitutional scholars across the spectrum have debated whether the time would come for the Supreme Court to cast aside one of history’s most controversial rulings — the 5-4 decision in 1873 in the Slaughterhouse Cases. In that ruling, the dissenters claimed — and modern critics still complain — that the Court had made the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause into “a vain and idle enactment.”

Despite a brief revival of the Clause as a curb on state power to restrict individual rights, in the 1999 decision in Saenz v. Roe involving “the right to travel,” that part of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 1 has remained close to a constitutional dead letter. (It reads: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immnities of citizens of the United States.”)

In 1873, the Court said the Clause only restricted state laws affecting rights of national citizenship, not those affecting the rights of state citizens. Among others who have argued in recent years that the Court should rethink the Slaughterhouse Cases, Justice Clarence Thomas is the most prominent. He did so in a dissent in Saenz v. Roe, saying that, “in an appropriate case,” he would be open to reevaluating the meaning of the Clause.

Sometime this Fall, the Court will examine three cases that already are being pushed as “appropriate” ones for the Court to use for a reexamination of the Clause, and the Slaughterhouse precedent.

This is, in fact, a little-noticed part of the controversy already building around those new cases. The core issue, in all three, is whether the Court will expand the Second Amendment personal right to have a gun for self-defense, so that it restricts state and local government laws, not just those at the federal level (an issue that had a prominent role in the just-concluded nomination hearings for Justice-to-be Sonia Sotomayor. She will have a chance to vote on some of the new cases, it appears.)

Under constitutional theory, there are only three ways that the Court could interpret the Second Amendment as applying to the states. The Constitution’s text rules out one of those, the Slaughterhouse Cases rules out a second, and the one remaining — “incorporation” of the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment so that it reaches states – is not an attractive option to constitutional conservatives. Thus, the impending challenge to the Slaughterhouse precedent.


The one federal appeals court that has ruled, so far, that the Second Amendment protects personal gun rights against state, county and city laws is the Niinth Circuit. It took the only option it said was open to it: the incorporation theory under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The text of the Constitution itself makes the Second Amendment apply only to federal laws; that has been the constitutional undersanding since 1833 (Barron v. Baltimore), the Ninth Circuit noted in Nordyke v. King, a ruling it issued in April and is still pondering whether to reconsider en banc.

It follows from the Slaugherhouse Cases, the Ninth Circuit added, “that the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not protect the right to keep and bear arms because it was not a right of citizens of the United States.” That, it indicated, remains good law, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 recognized a constitutional right to have a gun under the Second Amendment.

Only the Supreme Court would have the authority (absent a new constitutional amendment) to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases. Two other Circuit Courts — the Second (in an opinion joined by Judge Sotomayor) and the Seventh — refused to extend the Second Amendment to the states, concluding that they were bound by Supreme Court precedents.

The Second and Seventh Circuit rulings are the ones now being challenged in the Supreme Court in three cases: Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — the Second Circuit case — and National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — both from the Seventh Circuit. (Because Judge Sotomayor participated in the Maloney case at the Second Circuit, she probably would not take part in any action by the Justices on that case.)

In the NRA petition, its lawyers argue alternative points for applying the Second Amendment to the states — the “incorporation” method, and applying it through the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The petition does not include extensive argument on the Slaughterhouse Cases, though that precedent is mentioned.

The McDonald petition goes further, suggesting the reconsideration of Slaughterhouse if the Court is unwilling to use the other, incorporation method, to extend the Second Amendment. It argues:
“The almost meaningless construction given this [Privileges and Immunities] provision in Slaughterhouse was wrong the day it was decided and today stands indefensible.”

The Maloney petition takes a somewhat cautious approach. It suggests that the Slaughterhouse Cases need not be overruled directly, but should be reinterpreted. It makes an argument likely to appeal to conservative Justices and others: re-reading that old precedent to extend Second Amendment rights, but to do so in a way that keeps the Privileges and Immunities Clause from becoming as “open-ended” as it says other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment have become.

A full exploration of the Clause and the Slaughterhouse precedent has been put before the Court in an amicus brief filed by the advocacy groups, Institute for Justice and the Cato Institute (filed in the Chicago cases; it can be downloaded [1] here).

In a clear pitch to Justice Thomas, the brief quotes his dissent in Saenz, and comments: “Restoring the Privileges and Immunities Clause to its proper place in the constitutional structure would have the advantage of tethering this Court’s rights-protecting jurisprudence much more closely to the Constitution’s text and history” than other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment have.

One of the reasons that Justice Thomas has suggested a possible reexamination of Slaughterhouse is a concern, apparently shared by other Justices and conservative commentators, to rein in the use of other clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment in the Court’s jurisprudence.
It looks like they're looking at this the same way we do. We know Slaughterhouse is wrong, they know it's wrong, even the bad guys know it's wrong...

...and I just hope we get our 5 or 6 votes to show for it and the sooner the better.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.

Last edited by yellowfin; 07-20-2009 at 8:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-20-2009, 8:35 PM
KylaGWolf's Avatar
KylaGWolf KylaGWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You and me both.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-21-2009, 6:35 AM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Interesting, this should make CA and a few other state lawmakers squirm.
__________________

HMM-161 Westpac 1994
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-21-2009, 9:31 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 883
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For a while I have been pointing this out, in writing, but few seem
to understand. Perhaps I am waaaay off base, but perhaps not.

Just as Heller was largely about Roe v. Wade (a valid constitutional
republic cannot invent rights not in the constitution, then ignore
rights in that same constitution), the Nordyke or MacDonald cases
is really about the 1971 Duke Power decision, and thus the CRA 1965.
Read what Scalia wrote in Heller, then what he wrote in Ricci. We
cannot have both the 14th and the Duke Power decision.

Interesting stuff. The way I see it, the plan is to re-establish the 14th,
but rely on Commerce Clause to hold up all the existing regulatory
structure. Why else rule on intra-state marijuana sales?

We live in interesting times.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.