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...

3 comments:

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.

Unknown said...

The original document in which was written to lay the framework to govern our land was purely manifested by carefully thought out Ideals reporting from the bible. In the issue of gun and property matters the word clearly states a man has certain rights to own weaponry to protect his kinship as well as his property. It is always best in my opinion to see the point of a theological standpoint to better understand the desisions of the Original framers views and insights. Before making a claim of a certain opinion on any topic of modern pollitical thought, as so many of our founding fathers did before the laws were written. We are by law a nation under god. Therefore I believe in fact we do have those rights entrusted to us. Remember also that with that the bible also speaks of a person who lives with a in a high standard of practicality, responsibility, and simple human humility. Our modern laws parallel this framework in my opinion. If the gun owner holds these values to a high standard, I have the upmost confidence that the laws would be safe and fair for all who do the same.