I thougt projective tests were about uncovering dfeelings.
At the risk of sounding snarky, I’ve filed this one in my hazari box.
Cathleen, I would like to know what our law professor brains should make of this:
On Friday Barach Obama briefly lamented the Northern Illinois University shootings, while being careful to reaffirm his belief that the Second Amendment protects an “individual right” to own guns. In doing so, he demonstrated some remarkable “post-partisanship.” As any senator knows, the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case. Senator Obama has managed to win the District’s primary while supporting the Second Amendment analysis of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which struck down DC’s law.
In last week’s remarks, Obama did not mention that the “individual right” approach has been rejected by the Seventh Circuit (which includes Illinois) and by the vast majority of other circuit courts which have considered the issue. Of course the senator’s statement sent a clear message to the Supreme Court, as it considers the Heller case, and to Obama’s colleagues in the Senate, a majority of whom have joined the vice president in a Supreme Court amicus brief which supports the D.C. Circuit’s “individua right” approach to the Second Amendment.
How is a law profesor’s brain to respond? Possibilities include:
a) Finally, a politician with the courage to speak up for the N.R.A.’s constitutional analysis.
b) John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” theory deserves a real test–why not DC?
c) I’ve just discovered new evidence that the framers of the Second Amendment thought that Shay’s Rebellion was a GOOD thing–do I have a chance for a Supreme Court appointment during the Obama administration?
d) Losing a few students to not-so-well regulated violence every week or so is a small price to pay for universal access to semi-automatic handguns with mega ammo clips.
e) That Obama sure is likeable!
Any other suggestions?
How about (f): Obama sorely needs a funky, post originalist position paper on the Second Amendment arguing that it only covers weapons that function like those around at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
Thanks, Cathleen. Choice (f) sounds like a modified (c). Con law professor who comes up with it first gets a place on the short list when Justice Stevens announces his retirement–on the very short list if couched in language that causes all those senators who support the “individual rights” position to believe that they are free to think and legislate as though (d) were the operative reality.
Not to decline the invitation to post-originalism, but I note with great approval your continued study of Latin. What do you make of the fact that the first few words of the Second Amendment form an “absolute construction?” As you know, the drafters of the Bill of Rights included passable Latin stylists, quite familiar with Latin’s ablative absolute and not reluctant to use an English equivalent.