Saturday, June 28, 2008

Con-Law "Prof" Turley--Ignoramus?

It went past pretty quickly, but I'm wondering if anyone else noticed.

Commenting on the Heller decision on FoxNews, ConLaw Prof Turley (I forget which school) stated that 'The Supreme Court discovered a NEW right in the Constitution....'

Almost dropped my coffee...


illusory tenant said...

You misunderstand.

The Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the individual vs. collective right question and that is the sense in which Prof. Turley is speaking of a "new discovery" (if that is indeed what he said).

As for Turley's own answer to the question, he wrote this last year, well in advance of Thursday's decision:

"[I]t is clear that [the Framers] would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment. ...

"[I]t does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it."

So, are you going to retract the scare quotes and your depiction of Prof. Turley as an ignoramus?

Dad29 said...

No. Here's why.

Turley said "new RIGHT."

By the quote you supplied, it's clear that even Turley agrees this is not "new."

However, your quote makes Turley look worse than the news-quote.

I]t does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers

Only in the most highly technical language analysis does that quote stand up to reality.

Scalia pointed out that the RKBA is a priori, NOT "granted" by the Framers, thus not subject to recission by any Government (in a just society.)

So when Turley says 'the Framers made it a protected right,' there are two possibilities: 1) they merely re-affirmed what everybody already knew; or 2) he thinks they 'granted' the right.

If he meant 1) above, I'll reconsider taking off the quotes.