mcdonald v. chicago
is in front of US today. chicago and surrounding suburb has gun control laws.
prior history - DC v. heller, which held that 2nd amdt protects an individual's rights to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves but did not address the issue of whether the right extends beyond federal enclaves to the states.
prior history - parker v. DC, which the US struck down the firearms regulation act as unconstitutional.
the issue is what's the status of the 2nd amd't? is there an incorporated right to bear arms in the states? does the 14th amd't (citizenship, Privileges and Immunities (slaughterhouse cases closed the privileges and immunities, and US is being asked to overrule it), DPC (transports the limit of BOR to the states... NRA wants this argued as due process), EP) extend the protection of the original BOR over the states incorporating all BOR over the states? does the 14th amd't incorporate the rulings of BOR cases as well? chicago's lawyer (feldman) is arguing that we do *not* incorporate "every dot and tittle", citing Duncan v. LA etc but only the *core* of the rights. with 2nd amd't, the core issue is the right to protect and defend and this right will be regulated differently in different regions.
what of the constitution applies as limits on the states? 14th amd't says you can't redefine rights of citizens without good cause. the question is whether the rights that apply to the national gov't are the rights/benefits that exist in the 14th amd't clauses.
will this decision affect previously determined rights and limitations?
on a personal note: how to build a chabudai...
dames and moore v. regan
IEEPA confers to president additional powers beyond art. II
to uphold IEEPA here would allow regan to hold iranian company assets here and in iran.
why isn't regan losing? congress' silence on this matter implies consent (like in youngstown, the silence was permission to seize the steel factory)... is this the source of the authorization?
how does congress show its acquiescence?
is this a fixed methodology?
the court says that the opinion is "narrow" -- the president may only go this far in this context, and the US will review in the next context when the question arises.
case brief with useful questions.
the prize cases.
(n.b. - beyond youngstown, there's not a discussion about the president's war power execution)
lincoln doesn't want to declare war because it would be acknowledging the succession of the confederate states. the court 5-4 says that the president has response powers: "you're bound to resist force by force"
in modern times, this is complicated. in our post-9/11 world, the legal system wrestles with this along 2 dimensions:
(1) detention, the US power to bring people to guantanemo or detain them elsewhere. what does the const say about detention off-shore?
(2) military commission process, where executive and military execute charges against people (usually in off-shore context).
ex parte quirin (notes, p. 370) - US upheld the way by which the nazi sabatouers were apprehended...
rasul v. bush (notes, p.370) - issue was whether US has jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostiles incarcerated by US in territories such as guantanemo
habeas corpus.
boumediene v. bush
the test to determine if habeas has extraterritorial applications (from johnson v. eisentrager):
(1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made;
(2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and
(3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner's entitlement to the writ
No comments:
Post a Comment