Thursday, June 24, 2010
today's doe v reed opinion (pdf) is 8-1 (Thomas) but has a wide variety of concurring opinions. The one that I think gets it right is Alito's. Alito says, yes this facial challenge fails but it should be fairly easy for Doe to win the as-applied challenge on remand. The majority (Roberts) says pretty much the same thing, but less emphatically. Scalia is off the wall as sometimes happens, and gets McIntyre wrong again. Sotomayor is hostile to as applied challenges. Thomas would apply strict scrutiny.
McDonald, the gun case, on Monday.
McDonald, the gun case, on Monday.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Once and may be future senator Dan Coats said to me today "I've waited a long time for this."
I think I know what he meant, but I didn't say anything back.
I think I know what he meant, but I didn't say anything back.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
A 7th circuit decision judge v quinn upheld the temporary appointment of roland burris to fill senator obama's term, instead of holding a special election. via hasen.
This was 17th amendment challenge.
The 3rd amendment is the notoriously unlitigated one, but the 17th is one that has no supreme court cases, except one summary affirmance that probably has no precedential value.
Here are the lower court cases.
[Footnote 2] United States v. Aczel, 219 F. 917 (D. Ind. 1915) (citing Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884)).
[Footnote 3] Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 800 (1946).
[Footnote 4] MacDougall v. Green, 355 U.S. 281 (1948), overruled on equal protection grounds in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969). See Forssenius v. Harman, 235 F. Supp. 66 (E.D.Va. 1964) aff'd on other grounds, 380 U.S. 529 (1965), where a three-judge District Court held that the certificate of residence requirement established by the Virginia legislature as an alternative to payment of a poll tax in federal elections was an additional qualification to voting in violation of the Seventeenth Amendment and Art. I, Sec. 2.
None of this is very exciting stuff; it's just that one so rarely sees a case on this i thought i'd point it out. it also means that if I continue to do iterations of my voter ID lawsuits, I could toss in a 17th amendment claim; that's one that I'd missed, and I'm pretty thorough.
This was 17th amendment challenge.
The 3rd amendment is the notoriously unlitigated one, but the 17th is one that has no supreme court cases, except one summary affirmance that probably has no precedential value.
Here are the lower court cases.
[Footnote 2] United States v. Aczel, 219 F. 917 (D. Ind. 1915) (citing Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884)).
[Footnote 3] Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 800 (1946).
[Footnote 4] MacDougall v. Green, 355 U.S. 281 (1948), overruled on equal protection grounds in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969). See Forssenius v. Harman, 235 F. Supp. 66 (E.D.Va. 1964) aff'd on other grounds, 380 U.S. 529 (1965), where a three-judge District Court held that the certificate of residence requirement established by the Virginia legislature as an alternative to payment of a poll tax in federal elections was an additional qualification to voting in violation of the Seventeenth Amendment and Art. I, Sec. 2.
None of this is very exciting stuff; it's just that one so rarely sees a case on this i thought i'd point it out. it also means that if I continue to do iterations of my voter ID lawsuits, I could toss in a 17th amendment claim; that's one that I'd missed, and I'm pretty thorough.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
