To answer the argument in This article, the petitioners in the New York gun case can simply say (Of course I am here assuming that the Second Amendment still obligates a right to keep and bear Arms) that they are not arguing violation to the Second Amendment on the ground that they need to be free from those city prohibitions in order to have their rights to keep and bear arms but instead on the ground that the city prevents them from keeping and bearing arms while implementing those prohibitions, and that is far from being equivalent to the situation with the education case that was brought for comparison.
As for the part the writer quoted from that gun case, that could be just to argue for having the standing to bring the case.
I may need to read better argument for what is called implied or unenumerated constitutional rights which this article brought more closely to my attention. But I would be very surprised if I would find a valid point for it and not refuse the extension it seems to add on its own to the text of the constitution as strongly as I refuse the restriction Originalism makes on its own to the text of the constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment