What the fuck caused this?
People are just bouncing around from day to day, probably. One week they like one, the next another. I think that's just the nature of having such a big field 1/2 a year away from the first primaries. People are entertaining them until they "get serious" about one come the week before the primary.
On an entirely unrelated note, I just browsed through Steven's decent in DC v Heller while participating in a gun control thread. I certainly agree with the ultimate conclusion that the framers did not intend nor does the Constitution imply completely unrestricted access and usage of personal firearms. However, I have to say, the linguistic reasoning in the beginning of his dissent is pure nonsense.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
How are you going to say that "the people" in constitutional language applies to groups to the exclusion of individuals? His argument that the Assembly & Petition clause clearly refers to group action is nonsense. Individuals have the constitutional right of petition. And then he says "oh, and clearly the protections of the fourth amendment under the language of "the people" is applied to individuals, but I already said [incorrectly] it didn't apply to individuals in the Assembly & Petition clause of the first, so who can really say?" What... what even is that? And his take on "Keep and Bear Arms" is just pure semantics.
I find his take on the Militia Clause to be slightly more tenable, but he places all the impetus behind the writing of the amendment on the fear of federal disarmament by the states. He ignores the impact of Shay's Rebellion on the provision entirely. Not that Shay's being the impetus invalidates the idea that the amendment was directed towards the right of states as opposed to citizens to keep standing militias, but it's just a big oversight in trying to strengthen that argument.
His argument on the militia clause falls apart though because it's only foundation is his incredibly weak argument that "the people" implies the state by means of referring specifically to group action. Also when you look at the actual text of the amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's clear that the primary clause of the sentence is the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not infringed" and the militia clause is an introductory clause. He calls it a preamble, but I don't think that flies if it's just one sentence. I'm sorry, but if the framers intended the amendment to guarantee the right of the individual states to maintain armed militias, why wouldn't they have written "the right of the state to keep and bear arms/the right of the state to keep a standing armed militia shall not be infringed." They were smart men, if they wanted to imply that the right was applicable to the state at the exclusion of individuals they would have written exactly that.
Like I said, I disagree with the majority opinion and outcome of Heller but the first section of this dissent is just godawful. Am I off the mark here?
