My opinion on the McDonald v Chicago ruling

My opinion on the McDonald v Chicago ruling is as follows:

This ruling was certainly (by itself) a great victory for all conservatives – regardless of everything else, the fact is that the SCOTUS has decided to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, thus making it legally binding on state and local governments.

Nonetheless, I am troubled by a few aspects of the ruling, as well as a few issues related to the SCOTUS.

1) The SCOTUS ruled that it needed to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to make it legally binding against state and local governments. This means that, according to the SCOTUS, if it hadn’t been incorporated, it would’ve been legally binding only on the federal government, even though it (like the First Amendment and Amendments #3-9) doesn’t contain any qualifiers that would’ve made it apply only to the FG. Under this theory, before the 14th Amendment (which enabled the SCOTUS to incorporate the first 10 Amendments) was ratified, state and local governments were allowed by the US Constitution to establish a state religion, prohibit certain (or all religions), censor speeches and the media, prohibit petitions, prohibit assemblies, quarter soldiers at a house without the consent of its owner, arrest anyone without any reason, detain anyone incommunicando indefinitely without the right to an attorney, refuse anyone a speedy public trial, refuse to tell inmates why were they arrested, refuse someone a trial by jury, refuse to allow confrontations of witnesses, and mete out cruel and unusual punishment, including death by torture. This is a ridiculous proposition, but this is essentially what the SCOTUS claimed.

2) The 4 strident liberals who sit on the SCOTUS bench claimed that even after the Heller v. DC ruling was issued, cities could STILL ignore the 2nd Amendment.

3) 3 of the 5 judges of the majority incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the Due Process clause, rather than the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

4) Obama’s most recent SCOTUS nominee claims that the government can curb certain categories of speech if the societal “damage” inflicted by those categories of speech is big.

5) If any of the conservative Supremes, or the moderate Anthony Kennedy, is replaced by a liberal, the US Constitution will mean nothing, because liberal judges will be allowed to twist it like wax.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s