With the train, it’s about 12 hours of travel time total, but for most of those I’m sitting in the same chair, sleeping or whatever. And there isn’t any of that “security” bullshit.

As interpreter of the Constitution it is his responsibility to do such things; but it is odd and not the least bit hypocritical that conservatives now read an implied right (to self-defense) in one part of the Constitution but not other implied rights (such as medical privacy) when arguing against something like abortion.

Original intent means a lot of things to a lot of people. As you correctly address, there is no original intent of the founders, as numerous men made numerous decisions across that fateful summer. They hardly developed a clear, unifying theme that could be called their original intent. When someone cites a political position or constitutional interpretation as original intent, they are most likely refering to an “original majority opinion at one moment in time.” I am entertained when someone cites an opinion as original intent because I imagine all sorts of other fun “original intent” arguments (many of which were actually voted on). For example, my man Gouverneur Morris proposed that one legislative house represent the land-owning interests of the country. His original intent was to give the wealthy serious protection from the thieving congressmen of the middle-class and poor. Another convention badass, George Mason, didn’t sign the final document at all. His original intent was to bury the tyrannical federalist form of government (unless a bill of rights was added, which it eventually was). So, the original intent of the members was quite diverse.

There are many alternative ways of looking to the past discussions of the founders for future guidance. I think textualism and contextualism provide stronger methods for examination than original intent. John Yoo provides an excellent breakdown of original intent and contextualism regarding war powers in his book “The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11.” Whatever you may think of him, he positively nails down his legal arguments.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

Oak Park Village President David Pope, said the ruling would threaten safety in his near west suburb, which banned gun ownership in 1984.

“The ruling puts [Justice Antonin] Scalia and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today,” he said.

This is NOT a valid or logical argument, and yet it seems to be the argument that Daley, and the Oak Park Mayor, and all those who are “outraged” by the Court’s decision are making.

Affirming that individuals have the right to bear arms, to purchase guns does NOT equate to increased violence, or a “Wild West” environment as some against the decision would have you think.

The FACT is that those involved with crime who use guns the MAJORITY (if not 100%) of the time did NOT secure guns through legal channels. So, the laws in DC, Chicago, and Oak Park are in fact hurting law abiding citizens…you are preventing everyone from gun ownership, yet those who do not choose to follow the law don’t pay attention to gun bans. Its pathetically laughable that Daley is outraged, once again (as I predicted to colleagues) invoking his black preacher voice is coming out against the courts decision. This while seemingly every weekend more people are killed BY GUN in the city of Chicago, with no let-up. Yeah, Daley is doing a fine job stopping gun crime with his handgun ban.

The Supreme Court got it right. PERIOD. I may not currently own a gun, but the fact that I can purchase one if I so choose is what I consider “a good thing.” There is something a bit frightening if one pauses to think of a society in which only the military and law enforcement are allowed to own guns.