The History Book Club discussion
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
>
THE AMENDMENTS
date
newest »
newest »
Can you imagine a monarchy in the US????? Heaven forbid.Have a great time at the game.
It's been raining on and off all day. I'll be tying myself to the Pesky Pole until the game is called. lol
Mod
But the 14th amendment should not give folks the right to abuse the system here or take advantage of the Americans generosity and good will. We have fight on terrorism going on globally and we must secure our borders. Plain and simple
Of course repealing the 14th Amendment would also sever the IRS's grasp on the income of those persons living outside the US who are US citizens solely because they were born in the US. Cf. the notorious case of Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, who hasn't lived in the US since he was five, but who was hit with a US tax bill over the sale of a London house. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/boris-Johnson-renounces-us-citizenship-tax-bill-mayor-london/385554/
Mod
Mod
This one in the Huffington Post - is on the side of not repealing it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/b...
Mod
He talked about his early interest in constitutional law, the role of the constitution in the operation of government, structure of the Constitution and its Amendments, and the process of judicial review.
The interview was part of a C-SPAN Classroom project designed to interest middle and high school students in the Constitution.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?193515-...
Source: C-Span and Youtube
Mod
The Establishment Clause together with the Free Exercise Clause form the constitutional right of freedom of religion that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The relevant constitutional text is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The Establishment Clause was derived from a number of precursors, including the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Pennsylvania and New Jersey colonial constitutions. An initial draft by John Dickinson was prepared in conjunction with his drafting the Articles of Confederation. In 1789, then-congressman James Madison prepared another draft which, following discussion and debate in the First Congress, would become incorporated into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which allows individual citizens freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs.
The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
Remainder of article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establi...
C-Span presentation: Link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?55762-1...
Kiryas Joel Village
Mr. Bernardo conducted a tour of Kiryas Joel Village, a section of New York City in which a public school has only Jewish students. The New York, NY district attorney has filed suit stating that the school district is in violation of the First Amendment in regard to separation of church and state.
Following the tour, a group of interested parties discussed the school district and the Supreme Court arguments concerning the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At a news conference held following the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court, the participants outlined the reasons for their positions on the issue and the questions asked by the Justices during the oral arguments.
Mod
by Adam Winkler (no photo)Synopsis:
Gunfight promises to be a seminal work in its examination of America's four-centuries-long political battle over gun control and the right to bear arms.
In the tradition of Gideon's Trumpet, Adam Winkler uses the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a law banning handguns in the nation's capital, as a springboard for a groundbreaking historical narrative.
From the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment to the origins of the Klan, ironically as a gun control organization, the debate over guns has always generated controversy.
Whether examining the Black Panthers' role in provoking the modern gun rights movement or Ronald Reagan's efforts to curtail gun ownership, Winkler brilliantly weaves together the dramatic stories of gun rights advocates and gun control lobbyists, providing often unexpected insights into the venomous debate that now cleaves our nation.
Mod
by Anthony LewisSynopsis:
A history of the landmark case of Clarence Earl Gideon's fight for the right to legal counsel. Notes, table of cases, index. The classic backlist bestseller. More than 800,000 sold since its first pub date of 1964.
Mod
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Source: Khan Academy
Mod
US Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas sits for an official photo.
Justice Clarence Thomas calls for reconsideration of landmark libel case
By Tammy Kupperman and Sophie Tatum, CNN
Updated 11:56 AM ET, Tue February 19, 2019
Washington (CNN)Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent, criticizing the 1964 decision that the Constitution creates a higher barrier for public figures to claim libel.
Link to remainder of article: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politi...
Source: CNN
Mod
James Madison - age 32 in 1783
In this video, historian Joe Ellis and Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson discuss the Constitutional Convention and the replacement of the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Plan and national government vs. states rights. Created by Aspen Institute.
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
Source: Khan Academy, Youtube, Aspen Institute
More:
The Constitution and democracy - Ellis and Isaacson for Khan Academy - pretty good - they get into the discussion of a republic versus a democracy which is part of the Federalist 14 essay
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and the role of the President - Ellis and Isaacson - pretty good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and slavery part 1 - - Ellis and Isaacson - pretty good - they discuss the Constitution and ideological divide around slavery in addition to the Three-Fifths compromise
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
Note: I have decided to include all of these brief presentations by Ellis and Isaacson because they are very good and give some excellent background information either about the discussions at the Constitutional Conference itself or repercussions later on.
More (cont'd):
The Constitution and slavery part 2 - Ellis and Isaacson continue the discussion of the Constitution and slavery and what compromise meant at the Constitutional Convention and George Washington's involvement with slaves - pretty good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and proportional representation - this one has relevance to Federalist 14 in terms of the states - Ellis and Isaacson talk about the following: In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates compromised on state representation by dividing the legislative branch between the Senate, in which every state has two representatives regardless of size, and the House of Representations, where representatives are apportioned to the states according to their population. For the purposes of apportionment, the delegates agreed to the now-infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted each enslaved resident of the Southern states as three-fifths of a person - this one was excellent and describes extremely well what is wrong in Congress and other branches today - lack of humility - quite good when they discuss Ben Franklin's letter
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and "We, the People of the United States" - Joe Ellis and Walter Isaacson discuss the beginning of the Constitution and the term "We, the People of the United States" and what that means - relevant to Federalist 14 and the power of the people - very good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Amendments 1-3
Ellis and Isaacson discuss the Constitution's Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-3 - Relevant to Federalist 14 in many ways because Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights which was a compromise to the Anti Federalists to get their votes to ratify the Constitution - 7 states ratified the constitution with suggested amendments - the amendments were not stipulations by recommendations (Madison wanted to make that point) - there were actually 124 suggested original state recommended amendments - many overlapped and repeated themselves - but Madison said in order to get the full cooperation of the states - remember Rhode Island had not certified, North Carolina was lingering, New York really signed against its will that we need to prove and show that we have listened to them. Madison writes them on his own time when he was then in the House of Representatives and is a codicil to the Constitution - very good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Amendments 4, 5, 10
Ellis and Isaacson discuss the Constitution's Bill of Rights, Amendments 4, 5, and 10. - this is interesting because the 10th amendment was a catch all for everything not discussed in the Constitution about the rights of the states and its people - but this amendment has caused quite a bit of ire and confusion. - good
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...
For Fun - there is a Practice Test:
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...--
Mod
April 16, 2020
Join Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, for a conversation on the Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure. This lesson will allow students to examine the text and interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to describe key terms and ideas like searches, seizures, and privacy, as well as define some of the key debates about where the Amendment is headed in an age of technology.
Link to Video and discussion - part 2 - https://constitutioncenter.org/intera...
Mod
Search and Seizure
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Mod
by Barry Friedman
Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law and Affiliated Professor of Politics at New York Univeristy; Director of the Policing Project at NYU’s School of Law
by Orin Kerr
Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Imagine you’re driving a car, and a police officer spots you and pulls you over for speeding. He orders you out of the car. Maybe he wants to place you under arrest. Or maybe he wants to search your car for evidence of a crime. Can the officer do that?
The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that gives the answer. According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes.
The Fourth Amendment has been debated frequently during the last several years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. The federal government has conducted bulk collection of Americans’ telephone and Internet connections as part of the War on Terror. Many municipal police forces have engaged in aggressive use of “stop and frisk.” There have been a number of highly-publicized police-citizen encounters in which the police ended up shooting a civilian. There is also concern about the use of aerial surveillance, whether by piloted aircraft or drones.
The application of the Fourth Amendment to all these activities would have surprised those who drafted it, and not only because they could not imagine the modern technologies like the Internet and drones. They also were not familiar with organized police forces like we have today. Policing in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a responsibility of the citizenry, which participated in “night watches.” Other than that, there was only a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today.
The primary concerns of the generation that ratified the Fourth Amendment were “general warrants” and “writs of assistance.” Famous incidents on both sides of the Atlantic gave rise to placing the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. In Britain, the Crown employed “general warrants” to go after political enemies, leading to the famous decisions in Wilkes v. Wood (1763) and Entick v. Carrington (1765). General warrants allowed the Crown’s messengers to search without any cause to believe someone had committed an offense. In those cases the judges decided that such warrants violated English common law. In the colonies the Crown used the writs of assistance—like general warrants, but often unbounded by time restraints—to search for goods on which taxes had not been paid. James Otis challenged the writs in a Boston court; though he lost, some such as John Adams attribute this legal battle as the spark that led to the Revolution. Both controversies led to the famous notion that a person’s home is their castle, not easily invaded by the government.
Today the Fourth Amendment is understood as placing restraints on the government any time it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property. The Fourth Amendment also provides that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” The idea is that to avoid the evils of general warrants, each search or seizure should be cleared in advance by a judge, and that to get a warrant the government must show “probable cause”—a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity—to justify the search or seizure.
To the extent that a warrant is required in theory before police can search, there are so many exceptions that in practice warrants rarely are obtained. Police can search automobiles without warrants, they can detain people on the street without them, and they can always search or seize in an emergency without going to a judge.
The way that the Fourth Amendment most commonly is put into practice is in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court decided in the mid-twentieth century that if the police seize evidence as part of an illegal search, the evidence cannot be admitted into court. This is called the “exclusionary rule.” It is controversial because in most cases evidence is being tossed out even though it shows the person is guilty and, as a result of the police conduct, they might avoid conviction. “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered,” declared Benjamin Cardozo (a famous judge and ultimately Supreme Court justice). But, responded another Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, “If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.”
One of the difficult questions today is what constitutes a “search”? If the police standing in Times Square in New York watched a person planting a bomb in plain daylight, we would not think they needed a warrant or any cause. But what about installing closed circuit TV cameras on poles, or flying drones over backyards, or gathering evidence that you have given to a third party such as an Internet provider or a banker?
Another hard question is when a search is acceptable when the government has no suspicion that a person has done something wrong. Lest the answer seem to be “never,” think of airport security. Surely it is okay for the government to screen people getting on airplanes, yet the idea is as much to deter people from bringing weapons as it is to catch them—there is no “cause,” probable or otherwise, to think anyone has done anything wrong. This is the same sort of issue with bulk data collection, and possibly with gathering biometric information.
What should be clear by now is that advancing technology and the many threats that face society add up to a brew in which the Fourth Amendment will continue to play a central role.
Source: The National Constitution Center
Mod
by Orin Kerr- Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.
The Fourth Amendment was written over two hundred years ago. But today’s crimes often involve computers and the Internet, requiring the police to collect digital evidence and analyze it to solve crimes.
The major question is, how much power should the police have to collect this data? What is an unreasonable search and seizure on the Internet?
Consider the example of a Facebook account. If you log in to Facebook, your use of the account sends a tremendous amount of information to Facebook. Facebook keeps records of everything. What you post, what messages you send, what pictures you “like,” even what pages you view. Facebook gets it all, and it keeps records of everything you do. Now imagine that the police come to Facebook and want records of a particular user. The police think the suspect used Facebook to commit the crime or shared evidence of the crime using the site. Maybe the suspect was cyberstalking and harassing a victim on Facebook. Or maybe the suspect is a drug dealer who was exchanging messages with another drug dealer planning a future crime. Or perhaps the suspect committed a burglary, and he posted pictures of the burglary for all of his Facebook friends to see.
Here’s the hard question: What limits does the Fourth Amendment impose on the government getting access to the account records? For example, is it a Fourth Amendment “search” or “seizure” for the government to get what a person posted on his Facebook wall for all of his friends to see? Is it a search or seizure to get the messages that the suspect sent? How about records of what page the suspect viewed? And if it is a search or seizure, how much can the government seize with a warrant? Can the government get access to all of the account records? Only some of the account records?
The courts have only begun to answer these questions, and it will be up to future courts to figure out what the Fourth Amendment requires. As more people spend much of their lives online, the stakes of answering these questions correctly becomes higher and higher.
In my view, courts should try to answer these questions by translating the traditional protections of the Fourth Amendment from the physical world to the networked world. In the physical world, the Fourth Amendment strikes a balance. The government is free to do many things without constitutional oversight. The police can watch people in the public street or watch a suspect in a public place. They can follow a car as it drives down the street. On the other hand, the police need cause to stop people, and they need a warrant to enter private places like private homes.
The goal for interpreting the Fourth Amendment should be to strike that same balance in the online setting. Just like in the physical world, the police should be able to collect some evidence without restriction to ensure that they can investigate crimes. And just like in the physical world, there should be limits on what the government can do to ensure that the police do not infringe upon important civil liberties.
A second important area is the future of the exclusionary rule, the rule that evidence unconstitutionally obtained cannot be used in court. The history of the exclusionary rule is a history of change. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the exclusionary rule. Since the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court has cut back on when the exclusionary rule applies.
The major disagreement is over whether and how the exclusionary rule should apply when the police violate the Fourth Amendment, but do so in “good faith,” such as when the law is unclear or the violation is only technical. In the last decade, a majority of the Justices have expanded the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. A central question is whether the good faith exception will continue to expand, and if so, how far.
Source: The National Constitution Center
Mod
http://constitutionalrights.constitut...
Source: The National Constitution Center
Mod
Link: https://constitutioncenter.org/intera...
Source: The National Constitution Center
Mod
by David Gray (no photo)Synopsis:
The Fourth Amendment is facing a crisis. New and emerging surveillance technologies allow government agents to track us wherever we go, to monitor our activities online and offline, and to gather massive amounts of information relating to our financial transactions, communications, and social contacts. In addition, traditional police methods like stop-and-frisk have grown out of control, subjecting hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens to routine searches and seizures. In this work, David Gray uncovers the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment to reveal how its historical guarantees of collective security against threats of 'unreasonable searches and seizures' can provide concrete solutions to the current crisis. This important work should be read by anyone concerned with the ongoing viability of one of the most important constitutional rights in an age of increasing government surveillance.
Mod
by Stephen J. Schulhofer (no photo)Synopsis:
When the states ratified the Bill of Rights in the eighteenth century, the Fourth Amendment seemed straightforward. It requires that government respect the right of citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Of course, "papers and effects" are now digital and thus more vulnerable to government spying. But the biggest threat may be our own weakening resolve to preserve our privacy.
In this potent new volume in Oxford's Inalienable Rights series, legal expert Stephen J. Schulhofer argues that the Fourth Amendment remains, as the title says, more essential than ever. From data-mining to airport body scans, drug testing and aggressive police patrolling on the streets, privacy is under assault as never before--and we're simply getting used to it. But the trend is threatening the pillars of democracy itself, Schulhofer maintains. "Government surveillance may not worry the average citizen who reads best-selling books, practices a widely accepted religion, and adheres to middle-of-the-road political views," he writes. But surveillance weighs on minorities, dissenters, and unorthodox thinkers, "chilling their freedom to read what they choose, to say what they think, and to associate with others who are like-minded." All of us are affected, he adds. "When unrestricted search and surveillance powers chill speech and religion, inhibit gossip and dampen creativity, they undermine politics and impoverish social life for everyone." Schulhofer offers a rich account of the history and nuances of Fourth Amendment protections, as he examines such issues as street stops, racial profiling, electronic surveillance, data aggregation, and the demands of national security. The Fourth Amendment, he reminds us, explicitly authorizes invasions of privacy--but it requires justification and accountability, requirements that reconcile public safety with liberty.
Combining a detailed knowledge of specific cases with a deep grasp of Constitutional law, More Essential than Ever offers a sophisticated and thoughtful perspective on this important debate
Mod
by Christopher Slobogin (no photo)Synopsis:
Without our consent and often without our knowledge, the government can constantly monitor many of our daily activities, using closed circuit TV, global positioning systems, and a wide array of other sophisticated technologies. With just a few keystrokes, records containing our financial information, phone and e-mail logs, and sometimes even our medical histories can be readily accessed by law enforcement officials. As Christopher Slobogin explains in Privacy at Risk, these intrusive acts of surveillance are subject to very little regulation.
Applying the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, Slobogin argues that courts should prod legislatures into enacting more meaningful protection against government overreaching. In setting forth a comprehensive framework meant to preserve rights guaranteed by the Constitution without compromising the government’s ability to investigate criminal acts, Slobogin offers a balanced regulatory regime that should intrigue everyone concerned about privacy rights in the digital age.
Mod
(no image) The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation by Thomas K. Clancy (no photo)
Synopsis:
Due to the thousands of daily governmental intrusions such as airport checks, traffic stops, drug testing, obtaining of digital evidence, traditional criminal law enforcement practices and regulatory inspections the Fourth Amendment is the most commonly implicated and litigated part of our Constitution. This treatise comprehensively treats United States Supreme Court caselaw and takes a structural approach to the Fourth Amendment, addressing foundational questions, such as: What is a search? What is a seizure? What does the Amendment protect? Who does it protect? When is it satisfied? When does the exclusionary rule apply? The treatise is organized by topic so a reader can have ready access to current doctrine and is able to examine in additional sections how current doctrine developed. The historical events and the Court's development of search and seizure principles provide context to, and perspective on, current doctrine.
Mod
by Thomas McInnis (no photo)Synopsis:
This book explains the different approaches to interpreting the Fourth Amendment that the Supreme Court has used throughout American history, concentrating on the changes in interpretation since the Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states in 1961. It examines the evolution of the warrant rule and the exceptions to it, the reasonableness approach, the special needs approach, individual and society expectations of privacy, and the role of the exclusionary rule.
Mod
by Andrew E. Taslitz (no photo)Synopsis:
The modern law of search and seizure permits warrantless searches that ruin the citizenry's trust in law enforcement, harms minorities, and embraces an individualistic notion of the rights that it protects, ignoring essential roles that properly-conceived protections of privacy, mobility, and property play in uniting Americans. Many believe the Fourth Amendment is a poor bulwark against state tyrannies, particularly during the War on Terror.
Historical amnesia has obscured the Fourth Amendment's positive aspects, and Andrew E. Taslitz rescues its forgotten history in Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment, which includes two novel arguments. First, that the original Fourth Amendment of 1791—born in political struggle between the English and the colonists—served important political functions, particularly in regulating expressive political violence. Second, that the Amendment’s meaning changed when the Fourteenth Amendment was created to give teeth to outlawing slavery, and its focus shifted from primary emphasis on individualistic privacy notions as central to a white democratic polis to enhanced protections for group privacy, individual mobility, and property in a multi-racial republic.
With an understanding of the historical roots of the Fourth Amendment, suggests Taslitz, we can upend negative assumptions of modern search and seizure law, and create new institutional approaches that give political voice to citizens and safeguard against unnecessary humiliation and dehumanization at the hands of the police.
Mod
Search and Seizure
Join Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, for a conversation on the Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure. This lesson will allow students to examine the text and interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to describe key terms and ideas like searches, seizures, and privacy, as well as define some of the key debates about where the Amendment is headed in an age of technology.
Link: https://constitutioncenter.org/intera...
Source: The National Constitution Center
Mod
By Jamie Ehrlich, CNN
Updated 11:45 AM ET, Mon June 15, 2020
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up several cases regarding the scope of the Second Amendment.
Despite a low hurdle for the right-leaning Supreme Court, the justices turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws established to limit the availability and accessibility of some firearms and when they can be carried in public.
It's been over a decade since 2008's landmark 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v Heller that held the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense.
Except for a follow-up decision two years later, the court has not weighed in on Second Amendment rights significantly again.
In April, the court also declined to weigh in on the issue.
Five of the 10 cases the court declined to look at asked the justices to determine whether the Second Amendment allows the government to restrict the ability of citizens to carry a firearm outside the home to those with "good cause" or "justifiable need" to do so.
Two of the cases were high-profile challenges to state laws involving bans on certain semiautomatic firearms and high capacity magazines, one from Illinois and one from Massachusetts. The remaining three cases had a narrower scope, but none of the 10 will be argued before the justices.
Jacob Charles, the executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, said the court's decision to deny all of the pending Second Amendment petitions came as a surprise.
"The petitions denied today presented some of the biggest open questions in Second Amendment law, including what types of weapons the Constitution protects and how and whether the right extends outside the home," Charles said.
"For now, it appears that a majority of the Court is content to let these issues be sorted out by the lower courts."
Three of the nine justices have been vocal in recent years about their desire for the court to take up a Second Amendment case.
Last month, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed his concern that lower courts have been thumbing their noses at Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment, saying the court should "address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."
Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 complained that the lower courts were treating the Second Amendment right "cavalierly."
Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and vice president of pro-gun safety organization Brady: United Against Gun Violence, said the court's decision not to hear any of the Second Amendment cases is "well-reasoned"
"Today's decision is welcome, but we are vigilant that there remains a concerted effort to reverse it and undermine our nation's hard-earned progress in instituting common-sense gun safety measures and that those arguments have found sympathy with several of the Justices," Lowy said in a statement to CNN.
Link to article and video: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politi...
Source: CNN
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868 (other topics)The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment (other topics)
The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation (other topics)
Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment (other topics)
More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Andrew E. Taslitz (other topics)Thomas McInnis (other topics)
Thomas K. Clancy (other topics)
Christopher Slobogin (other topics)
Stephen J. Schulhofer (other topics)
More...
Uh monarchy Jill? I don't think so. lol I would love to continue this discussion but I have a Red Sox game to go to tonight and have to leave soon. Love this discussion though.