Steve,
She's definitely not a throwaway. She's the real nominee. The Republicans will not put up a fight because it is futile. They may negotiate a few backroom agreements, but they won't embarrass a newly elected black president over nominating a Hispanic, female jurist. The Republicans are losing too many Hispanics as we speak. The selection by Obama was calculated.
jamullinstx
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Sotomayor and 2A Rights”
- Sat May 30, 2009 12:50 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Sotomayor and 2A Rights
- Replies: 53
- Views: 6469
- Fri May 29, 2009 9:11 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Sotomayor and 2A Rights
- Replies: 53
- Views: 6469
Re: Sotomayor and 2A Rights
Annoyed,
1st through 10th, except 2nd, have already been incorporated. The only reason 2nd hasn't been incorporated is due to racist politics (yes, politics) following the Civil War and reaching through the mid-20th century. (These are the same racist sentiments that have most southern states, including my beloved Texas, prohibiting open carry. For good reading look up any articles you can find on "The Deacons" to understand why shotguns, but not rifles or handguns were used to protect black churches in Texas and Louisiana following the Civil War.) To the non-lawyers (including me) on the forum, it seems obvious that the BofRs restricts the states in addition to the federal government, but in order to avoid allowing blacks to own "bad" weapons by ruling a state court decision unconstitutional, the SCOTUS contrived the concept of "selective incorporation" and allowed the state court decision to stand. Which court is left as an exercise for the reader(s).
This is a long way of saying that most of your earlier examples are decided law, and are now moot.
However, with the Heller decision, which didn't address incorporation by design, the field is ripe for incorporation on the 2A. Now that 2A, by Heller, is recognized as an individual right, states are open to suits against laws/regulations that limit individual rights. To succeed in these suits requires a ruling on incorporation, thus the battle is set.
I don't think Sotomayor is a strong 2A supporter, but based upon my research she supports the dictum of stare decisis, and the prevailing evidence is that the Framers intended for the BofRs to be like the rest of the Constitution by placing restrictions on what power the government, including the states' governments, may wield against its citizens. Remember, the unenumerated powers are relegated to the states, but by incorporation the RtkBA becomes one of the exclusions over which the states can execute no power.
1st through 10th, except 2nd, have already been incorporated. The only reason 2nd hasn't been incorporated is due to racist politics (yes, politics) following the Civil War and reaching through the mid-20th century. (These are the same racist sentiments that have most southern states, including my beloved Texas, prohibiting open carry. For good reading look up any articles you can find on "The Deacons" to understand why shotguns, but not rifles or handguns were used to protect black churches in Texas and Louisiana following the Civil War.) To the non-lawyers (including me) on the forum, it seems obvious that the BofRs restricts the states in addition to the federal government, but in order to avoid allowing blacks to own "bad" weapons by ruling a state court decision unconstitutional, the SCOTUS contrived the concept of "selective incorporation" and allowed the state court decision to stand. Which court is left as an exercise for the reader(s).
This is a long way of saying that most of your earlier examples are decided law, and are now moot.
However, with the Heller decision, which didn't address incorporation by design, the field is ripe for incorporation on the 2A. Now that 2A, by Heller, is recognized as an individual right, states are open to suits against laws/regulations that limit individual rights. To succeed in these suits requires a ruling on incorporation, thus the battle is set.
I don't think Sotomayor is a strong 2A supporter, but based upon my research she supports the dictum of stare decisis, and the prevailing evidence is that the Framers intended for the BofRs to be like the rest of the Constitution by placing restrictions on what power the government, including the states' governments, may wield against its citizens. Remember, the unenumerated powers are relegated to the states, but by incorporation the RtkBA becomes one of the exclusions over which the states can execute no power.