« US Involvement in the Darfur Conflict | Main | Give Thanks for those (Soon to Disappear?) Benefits »

November 26, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00d834cc509b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Federalist Society Speaker Discusses Rational Basis Jurisprudence:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joan A.Conway

Are you suggesting that the majority opinion in U.S.A. vs. Lopez had a good impact on the schools attended by our children?

Have gun; will go to school deserves the rational basis expounding by the minority when one considers the vulnerability of our children in the school zone to guns to restrain trade in the economy.

Joan A. Conway

Because of the Supreme Court's devotion to "Strict Scrutiny," as it pertains to speech, I revisit the rational-basis-test that many feel has flaws and failings.

A rational-basis-test in Constitutional Law is defined as the following phrase suggests: "A principle whereby a Court will uphold a law as VALID under the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE if it bears a reasonable relationship to the attainment of some legitimate governmental objective.

Fundamental right(s) triggers strict scrutiny under the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, such as voting, interstate travel, privacy - marriage, contraception rights, etc. See Slaughter House Case, Lochner vs. N.Y., and more recently Griswold vs. Connecticutt, (1965) Roe v. Wage,(1973) and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992).

Since I have taken issue with Justice Rehnquist's opinion in U.S.A. vs. Lopez, I plan to support my reasons below:

The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in every sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce, because it restrains the acquisition of knowledge upon which this nation has a human capital investment requiring safeguarding an interest in speech.

Lopez, an ethnic name of Mexican descent, as a local student at a local school is there to acquire useful knowledge and the student body, mainly youngsters, needs special protection with Lopez possession of a gun in their local school zone. The children are in the local school zone to associate with an institution of education based on speech. They have a need to be free from bodily restraint in a market place of ideas. Lopez holds a gun of monopoly power over their freedom of speech, and thus, the distribution of speech is skewed by unequal speaking power to the advantage of Lopez, since he has a gun in the local school zone.

The liberties of the individuals in the local school zone are so fundamental to an open society than Lopez's gun possession closes speech in this society. Students are legitimate wards of the state and are not equal in intelligence and capacity to Congress, the school administration, nor gun carrying Lopez. Students' behavior is a national concern that crosses bounderies rapidly, because they mock and are susceptible to peer pressure and acts of violence, which needs special protection by the nation.

Because the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 neither egulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce the court held the Act exceeded the authority of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states.

But under the Nullification Doctrine an argument can be made that a failure to reveal something required by law to be revealed imposed a need for greater burden of justification than "minimum rationality" on the defenders of the Commerce Clause and a Court devoted to its limits overlooking the "taking Clause" and "liberty or common law from physical restraint under due process" that requires heightened protection to speech, and ethnic origin, national origin, and race.

Apparently, it demanded more than a showing that reasonable persons might think that the means would promote the end applied a stricter heightened scrutiny than its ownarticulated seemingly deferential standard suggested.

Pherhaps the statute lacked the natural and legal effect of the language employed to link it to the Commerce Clause, but because of the nullification it was not repugnant to the Constitution from the natural efffect of such statute(s) when put into operation, and not from their proclaimed purpose to prohibit obstruction of access to knowledge by way of a fear of the ethnic origin or national origin or race that a certain student whose surname happened to be Lopez and had possession of a gun in the local school zone.

The Court refused to make an inference upon inference in this matter avoiding the market place of ideas that occurs in a local school zone as the doorway or school yard of acquisition to knowledge, the entry of which the wards of the state become national citizens in a job market.

Why the Supreme Court restricts speech failed appropriate jusidical responsibility for protecting this entry way to speech missing in the Act.

The Act's shortfall in descriptive language emphasizes a lack of speech essential to the reading of a statute, by eliminating the speech from the Act Congress gave the Court an opportunity to read what is a political question about the aptly named Lopez threat to commerce and cultural gang violence associated with ethnic groups.

I hold the majority of Justices were all dull the day they expounded on U.S.A. vs. Lopez, because a reasonable person can see that the Act would have a good impact on the schools attended by the wards of the State(s), under the full, faith, and credit clause of the United States, and well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States, and the Taking Clause of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The means-end relationships will not justify terror restraints on acquiring useful knowledge at the golden gates of opportunity.

It is also not reasonable to believe the law is not valid for lack of nexus to the Commerce Clause, because of its failure to mentionneither regulates a commerical activity (that appears obvious to me; nor contains a requirement that the possession (of the gun) be connected in any way to interstate commerce (without a preliminary police investigation as to the condition of the ethnic origin or national origin or race of Lopez's gun possession, the police report may never know if the gun had a history and/or was a dirty gun?).

Joan A. Conway

I welcome a discussion on this topic by constitutional lawyers, students, or informed persons. Please post comments to this blog.

Joan A. Conway

Once again please give me your insight my comment to this blog.

Joan A. Conway

Yes, it is bitterly cold outside in Chicago. Chicagoeans are distracted with their Bears being in the SuperBowl, and many are enjoying the warmer weather in Florida and elsewhere, since few are on the blog(s).

A recent incident in Hillcrest High School's front of school and rear parking lot concerning shooting incident after a basket ball game was to provoke a fight and had been brewing for some time according to authorities. The student's were showing off and drinking, and it happened randomly, and they are probably coming back to do it again. A lot of people were crossing the street.

The Lopez case mentions him having possession of a gun in a school zone, like the front of a school or the rear parking lot. If he was provoking a fight, he was trying to be a cause to rebel against some in justice, be it to show off, or to be drunk, or whatever. But surely freedom of speech was not what Lopez was looking for with his gun.

Joan A. Conway

UP DATE: A friend said Talovic was from the war-torn country of Bosnia and that the trauma he experienced while growing up may have led to him snapping for some reason.

Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived, Burbank said.

"There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people," the police chief said.

Police said it was not immediately clear who fired the shot that killed Talovic.

Comment: To the satisfaction of those who want their Second Amendment rights, "gun are not bad, the people carrying them are!"

Said by, Shaun Hannity, Radio & TV fame.

Joan A. Conway, Curve Ball called Ball Four and Gay and Lesbian is walked to Training Camp.

Beware someone is very good at listening to what you say and coming back to bite you with your own words.

No hypocrites at this blog, please!

The are no bad guns, just bad people [Emphasis supplied].

Am I guilty of the act of being under-inclusive and not including a broad group of peole in an advocacy for guns, and am i guilty of the act of being over-inclusive in tainting all gays and lesbians as bad, under the equal protection act and having a fundamental right to carry a gun denied a person simply because they are gay or lesbian in the defense of their country?

Joan A. Conway

My critics may be numerous, but the freedom to speak, one's God-given gift, should not be stifled.

I am not running for a political office because my life is not perfect at all!

I am not leaving the public to find my DNA in someother century, like Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemming, who was a target of much abuse by his rivals, one that became his best friend, John Adams.

The High Federalists exposed their own jealousy and destroyed their own political careers, such as Hamilton.

Another egocentric Republican in the Era of the Framers destroyed his career for being too self-serving in forming the Republic Party, Alan Burr, when he dualed with the eager to dual, Hamilton, that also destroyed the High Federalists as a party of extremists.


An excellent read by the way is The Magnificent Castrophe, by Edward J. Larson, copyright 2007.

It is a fast read about the election cycle of 1800, and the beginning of the Presidential election controled by parties, the Republican Party, or Jefferson ticket, later to become the Democratic Party, versus the Federalist Party, the Torries, or the Adam ticket.

I enjoyed it so much as to want everyone to read it, which explans a lot about the self-serving tendencies of men and their parties runned by men carried on the shoulders of candidates, many conservatives remaining loyal to former President Washington, or the United States first monarch/president.

Lots to learn in this book.

It is about the process.

Happy New Year.

The comments to this entry are closed.