Is sex discrimination prohibited by the Constitution? The Texas Law Review is about to publish a paper that turns prevailing Originalist arguments on their head, asserting that sex discrimination is indeed unconstitutional.
I'll see what I think about that after I finish studying for finals.
(h/t to The Volokh Conspiracy)
10.12.2011
8.13.2009
The Whole Foods Conundrum
So now I can't shop at Whole Foods?
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, spouts off in the WSJ.
The recent ("activist") Heller decision to apply the 2nd amendment to individuals,shows how the definition of "rights" evolves - even for supposed strict constructionists. The majority's reasoning is based on "historical background" and not on a strict reading of the Constitution itself.
So when Mackey writes that
Based on the "historical background" surrounding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, would Mackey support repeal of every amendment that granted "new" rights... to Blacks? to women? etc.? Because by "historical background" the majority concluded
By that standard, all but a sliver of American society - white male landowners - have any legitimate Constitutional rights to be ascertained by Mackey's "careful reading" technique.
The mind reels. Back to law school assignments...
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, spouts off in the WSJ.
The recent ("activist") Heller decision to apply the 2nd amendment to individuals,shows how the definition of "rights" evolves - even for supposed strict constructionists. The majority's reasoning is based on "historical background" and not on a strict reading of the Constitution itself.
So when Mackey writes that
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America- it just makes me want to scream.
Based on the "historical background" surrounding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, would Mackey support repeal of every amendment that granted "new" rights... to Blacks? to women? etc.? Because by "historical background" the majority concluded
What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”
By that standard, all but a sliver of American society - white male landowners - have any legitimate Constitutional rights to be ascertained by Mackey's "careful reading" technique.
The mind reels. Back to law school assignments...
8.11.2009
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi convicted; sentence commuted.
From the New York Times:
“The outcome of this trial has never been in doubt,” Jared Genser, her international counsel in Washington, said Tuesday after the verdict was announced. “The real question is how the international community will react — will it do more than simply condemn this latest injustice?”
The charge against Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi was prompted by a strange incident in early May when an American intruder swam across a lake in central Yangon, Myanmar’s main city, and spent two nights in her villa, saying he wanted to save her from assassins...
According to news agency reporters allowed inside the courtroom to hear the reading of the three-year sentence, a five-minute recess was called after the verdict was given, and the country’s home minister, Gen. Maung Oo, entered the court and read aloud an order of commutation issued by Senior Gen. Than Shwe, the leader of the junta.
The 18-month term will ensure that Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi will be confined during a parliamentary election due next year. Many analysts have said they believe the case against her was intended to keep her from participating in the election.
“The outcome of this trial has never been in doubt,” Jared Genser, her international counsel in Washington, said Tuesday after the verdict was announced. “The real question is how the international community will react — will it do more than simply condemn this latest injustice?”
The charge against Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi was prompted by a strange incident in early May when an American intruder swam across a lake in central Yangon, Myanmar’s main city, and spent two nights in her villa, saying he wanted to save her from assassins...
According to news agency reporters allowed inside the courtroom to hear the reading of the three-year sentence, a five-minute recess was called after the verdict was given, and the country’s home minister, Gen. Maung Oo, entered the court and read aloud an order of commutation issued by Senior Gen. Than Shwe, the leader of the junta.
The 18-month term will ensure that Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi will be confined during a parliamentary election due next year. Many analysts have said they believe the case against her was intended to keep her from participating in the election.
7.30.2009
Gates-gate coda in the offing
Since this has been the main subject of my recent posts, I might as well relay the latest... by way of The Root, which links to the Post piece about Lucia Whalen, the 911 caller.
Reports of her actions - and supposed racist motives - are just wrong. Instead of catching a case of alarmism from the elderly woman who asked Whalen to call the police, she went and took a quick look at the situation before giving a an arguably careful report.
It's incredibly sad to know the situation devolved from her description of events to "disorderly conduct" and handcuffs.
Oh, well. It'll all be taken care of shortly...
(from same Post piece linked above)
All's well that ends well... or so I've heard.
Reports of her actions - and supposed racist motives - are just wrong. Instead of catching a case of alarmism from the elderly woman who asked Whalen to call the police, she went and took a quick look at the situation before giving a an arguably careful report.
It's incredibly sad to know the situation devolved from her description of events to "disorderly conduct" and handcuffs.
Oh, well. It'll all be taken care of shortly...
Gates and Crowley will gather for a beer and chat with President Obama at a picnic table outside the Oval Office as the sun sets Thursday. The president has called the incident a "teachable moment," but the trio is no expected to discuss the details in their meeting.
Off the agenda: Gates's and Crowley's dueling accounts of the professor's arrest outside of his home on July 16, and the accusation that Crowley allegedly racially profiled Gates.
On the agenda: A tour of the White House with their extended families. Gates will be accompanied by his fiance, two daughters, father and brother. Crowley will travel with his three children and wife.
And, of course, both men will bring their lawyers.
(from same Post piece linked above)
All's well that ends well... or so I've heard.
7.22.2009
7.21.2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)