Breaking: Gun right affirmed

[Person Man]

Funny how Scalia can be so constitutionally wrong one week (Gitmo) and be constitutionally right the next (gun rights).

Correct. The point is that he is a Republican Justice, not an Originalist Justice. He taught himself today the value of the constitution being read in a reasonable fashion. Then again, he read between the lines in Bush v. Gore and of course, Scalia has his own Substantive Due Process test that allows for constitutional protection of all things that America has a "traditional" history of protection.

[Person Man]

It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy. However, this tradition of activism is now running paralell with liberal judicial activism and could create an environment where the Supreme Court is relied on as a super legislature in a bigger way than even before. Perhaps as the tradition of a strong judiciary runs concurrent with trends in biological technology, we could see a super legislature in which any one member can control this country in a time measured in many decades, instead of many years. Perhaps this will give rise to the time where there is a strong enough support for a Constitutional Amendment to create a "control" branch to the judiciary, made up of law clerks that are voted on by the American Bar Association or an "examination" branch at the various levels of government to prevent unconstitutional laws. Perhaps there could even be an amendment to force federal judges to be voted on. Then again, in the Stoic philosophy that helped found this country, there should always be a nobility to check the will of the people so that only the best change can come forward.

[Person Man]

It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy.

You would basically have to say that there was a 300 year tradition of "rightest judges," and rightest constitutional assemblies, and legislatures.

Stevens, in trying to equate 18th Century regulations, especially the Philadelphia Ordinance, drew a false analogy.  It dealt with the use of a firearm verses the possession of a firearm.

It's a bit like saying that since you can be prohibited from driving a motorcycle through the Senate Chamber, you don't have a right to own a motorcycle.

I thought Stevens did a very poor job on trying to use the history of gun laws to justify his position.

Although, I am also talking about the XIVA Right to Contract, which was a major part of activism in the 20th century.

[Person Man]

Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.

I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

Although, I am also talking about the XIVA Right to Contract, which was a major part of activism in the 20th century.

The liberty of contract doctrine, while clearly indefensible as a matter of constitutional interpretation, is no more unreasonable than the modern doctrines on abortion and "privacy."

I am not saying how defensible it is, and just saying that the constitution is open to anyone with an imagination.