I know that it is Wednesday, but yesterdays Young v Hawaii ruling has me off and chasing through the streams of history as we consider what the ruling might – it may still not be clear – actually means.
Our examination of the ruling starts in 1752 in Port Royal, Bermuda, where a boy was born to Colonel Henry and Anne Butterfield Tucker. Some generations before, the family had married into the St. George family, and so the boy was christened, St. George Tucker.
It is this young man, who will eventually find his way to Virginia, where in 1772 he will become a lawyer, trained under George Wythe, will serve his adopted State and his new country, who will one day sit down and compose his notes on Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law. And what is that to us today? Read the rest of this entry
After watching the Marchers this past weekend, retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote and Op-Ed for the New York Times in which he indicated that he felt that the marchers were “aiming too low.” He wants nothing less than a full repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Now, on the one hand, it is somewhat refreshing to hear the political left finally come clean and admit what its goal actually is.
On the other hand, the Progressive Lefts’ response to the idea has be nothing short of proving that we live in the post-Constitutional Era. To most of those who spoke about the idea, the limits of the 2nd Amendment are pretty much meaningless.
But even if you take that argument, where does that road lead?
It’s Constitution Thursday on a Wednesday as a sore throated Dave has medical appointments tomorrow…