The Usual Suspects were fond of saying that if the Supremes limited Roe v Wade in any way, it would be the first time that a Constitutional right had ever been narrowed by the Court. Of course, that is incorrect. But never mind. It appears that the Supremes will for sure narrow a Constitutional right here pretty soon, the sacred Sixth Amendment right of delusional bums to represent themselves in criminal trials.<\/p>\n
One Constitutional right, the right to bear arms, has been rudely treated by the Supreme Court, judging from Miller v. United States, a 1939 case that is being (indirectly) reviewed in the argument over Washington D.C.\u2019s handgun ban. Now, I think I have a way out of this one, I call it Positively Scalian. I call it Scalia on Steroids. I call it Originalism with a Vengeance.<\/p>\n
Here it is: what did \u201carms\u201d mean in the 1780\u2019s? Smooth-bore muskets, flintlock pistols, swords, and small cannon. PERMITTED!!!!<\/p>\n
Machine guns, atomic bombs, nerve gas, rifles, SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION!!!<\/p>\n
I like the seamlessness of this interpretation with the rest of the text: \u201cA well-regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state\u2026.\u201d Yes! There are Indians threatening our little settlement, and, if not Indians, then teenagers with too much bass blasting rap music all wide and around: Summon the militia and FIRE AT WILL.<\/p>\n
And not just Will. Fire at Frankie, Jesus, and Tyrone, too. For wearing their britches too low, and other unspeakable breaches of taste.<\/p>\n
Finally, Former First Lady Hillary Clinton ducked sniper fire in Bosnia, or didn\u2019t, as the case may be. This resume-padding has gotten somewhat out of hand. Her confusion is understandable. When she first came to Arkansaw, we played a trick on her we like to play on all dumb Yankees, we took her snipe hunting.<\/p>\n
Damn if she didn\u2019t come home with a big one in her bag.<\/p>\n
###
\nhey matt – are u a poker player<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Usual Suspects were fond of saying that if the Supremes limited Roe v Wade in any way, it would be the first time that a Constitutional right had ever been narrowed by the Court. Of course, that is incorrect. But never mind. It appears that the Supremes will for sure narrow a Constitutional right […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":370,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[501],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-family","p1","y2008","m03","d27","h09"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/370"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/nesson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}