scholarly journals Supreme Court To Chicago On Gun Control: Go To Heller!

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick J. Reville
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
San Antonio ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
The Alamo ◽  
The Village ◽  
The City

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;"><em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Gun Control.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>For or against, you are going to have a fight on your hands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>But where is this fight to take place?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Is it going to be on the village greens of Lexington and Concord?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>On the fields of Gettysburg? The dirt streets of Tombstone, leading on down to the O.K. Corral?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Maybe at the base of the walls of the Alamo, down in San Antonio.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Possibly on the campus of Kent State, or even at the now reserved setting of a school board meeting in Columbine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>There are some mean streets in Ourtown, U.S.A.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>From New York City, to Washington D.C., and on to Chicago, where historic mob gun battles took place in the Capone Prohibition days, guns continue to blaze away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>But what to do about it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Should we outlaw guns altogether?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Or, as the saying goes, if we outlaw guns, will only outlaws have guns?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Do we listen to Michael Moore, or the N.R.A.?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Where can we find some common ground, and, maybe some answers?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The United States Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments on the City Of Chicago&rsquo;s ban on handguns, and its decision is imminent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>What will be the outcome, and where will the Court go to seek a majority, if not a consensus?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The answer may be a not so long look back, to the Court&rsquo;s decision in District Of Columbia v. Heller (1), decided in June of 2008.</span></span></em></p>

scholarly journals Wine Tourism After The Direct Shipment Revolution: Implications And A Proposed Methodological Framework

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin A. Goldberg ◽  
James Murdy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Wine Tourism ◽  
Interstate Commerce ◽  
The Individual

The United States Supreme Court recently considered challenges to two state laws regarding direct shipment of wine and spirits from out-of-state. Michigan law banned these direct shipments completely, requiring sales from out-of-state to be made through a Michigan wholesaler, even though it permitted direct shipments from within the state. New York law similarly banned direct shipments, although it created a narrow exception for out-of-state wine producers who maintained a place of business within New York. In Granholm v. Heald, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of these laws in light of the constitutional prohibition against state laws that unreasonably burden interstate commerce. The Court held that these laws did in fact impermissibly discriminate against interstate commerce, and were unconstitutional. It held that a state may permit direct shipments or prohibit them, but it could not create a discriminatory system where in-state direct shipment were permitted but out-of-state shipments were prohibited or burdened with additional costs. This decision left it to the individual state governments to fashion whatever direct shipment laws they wished, as long as the laws did not treat shipments from out of state differently from shipments within the state. As the individual states respond to this mandate, we can see how these new laws will impact wine tourism, actual and Internet travel for the purpose of experiencing and purchasing regional wines.

Republication- Lochner Abroad: Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 2179-2222
Author(s):  
David P. Currie
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Governmental Action

[T]here exists some strange misconception of the scope of this [due process] provision. … [I]t would seem, from the character of many of the cases before us, and the arguments made in them, that the clause… is looked upon as a means of bringing to the test of the decision of this court the abstract opinions of every unsuccessful litigant… of the justice of the decision against him, and of the merits of the legislation on which such a decision may be founded.As Justice Miller's famous lament suggests, wishful thinkers have sought since the beginning to find a way of making the United States Supreme Court ultimate censor of the reasonableness of all governmental action. Justice Chase thought he had discovered the magic wand in natural law, Justice Bradley in the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Justice Goldberg in the Ninth Amendment. Miller battled bravely, but he had lent significant support to the enemy with his freewheeling opinion inLoan Association v. Topeka.The fire was kept flickering in dissent and in majority opinions upholding laws against due process and equal protection challenges only because they were reasonable. It burst into full flame inLochner v. New Yorkin 1905, and for the next quarter century the Supreme Court was indeed what Justice Miller had denied it should be: ultimate censor of the reasonableness of all governmental action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document