Feil om USAs høyesterett
Thomas Skogestad
forest�ende godkjennelsen av Sonia Sotomayor som h�yesterettsdommer.(*)
1. Abort ble ikke innf�rt av H�yestrett i USA. Dette er en s� latterlig
p�stand at den strengt tatt ikke fortjener videre kommentar.
Men: Saken er Roe v. Wade og ble avsagt i 1973. I den saken uttalte USAs
H�yestrett at den amerikanske grunnloven beskyttet en kvinnes rett til
selvbestemt abort. Dersom den skulle bli tilsidesatt i en kommende sak, ville
reslultatet IKKE bli at abort ble forbudt, men folkevalgte myndigheter ville
st� fritt til � bestemme innholdet av abortlovgivningen.(**)
(Det p�st�s ikke i kommentarartikkelen, men USAs H�yesterett har heller ikke
innf�rt d�dsstraff i USA.)
Roe er et pseudonym.(***) Wade var statsadvokat i Dallas. Wade var for�vrig
aktor i straffesaken mot Jack Ruby, som drepte Lee Harvey Oswald, som drepte
John F. Kennedy.
(*) Sotomayor splitter republikanerne
Seks republikanske senatorer kommer trolig til � stemme for Sonia Sotomayor
som USAs f�rste latinamerikanske h�yesterettsdommer.
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentatorer/ask/article3203997.ece
Oppdatert: 06.08.09 kl. 13:08 Publisert: 05.08.09 kl. 22:42
(**) Se n�rmere "Supreme Modesty" av Jeffrey Rosen
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/magazine/24WWLN.html
(***) Jane Roe, tilsvarende for menn er John Doe.
July 29, 2009, 1:00 pm
Meet John Doe. No, Really!
By Alison Leigh Cowan
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/a-name-only-a-lawyer-could-love/?hp
2. "H�yesterett har s� langt sl�tt ned p� delstaters fors�k p� � begrense
denne rettigheten."
Nei. USAs H�yesterett har aldri gjort dette. N� tenker jeg at hvis noen leser
dette s� er ryggmargsrefleksen deres at dette er den rene okseavf�ring. Men
jeg vet dette ikke fordi jeg har lest gjennom alle rettsavgj�relser om
v�penkontroll, men fordi det st�r i fjor�rets avgj�relse som slo ned p� et
v�penkontrolltiltak Washington DC og som fastlo at det andre grunnlovs-
tillegget garanter den enkelte borger en rett til (skyte)v�pen (District of
Columbia v. Heller).
Washington DC er ikke en stat og er ikke en del av en stat. Det er viktig.
Det andre tillegget til USAs grunnlov (med retten til � "bear arms") er aldri
blitt anvendt *mot* en delstat, kun USAs f�derale myndigheter. Og s� langt
har den f�derale h�yesteretts praksis g�tt ut p� at den *ikke kan* anvendes
mot delstatene.
USAs grunnlov er en grunnlov for f�derasjonen, ikke delstatene. S�nn i
utgangspunktet.
I Heller sier dommer Scalia p� vegne av flertallet:
With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a
question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that
the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in
the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our
later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller
v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894) , reaffirmed that the Second Amendment
applies only to the Federal Government.
"Incorporation" betyr hvorvidt en en av grunnlovens bestemmelser kan anvendes
mot en delstat. Praksis rundt dette bygger p� 14. tillegget. Og jeg tror det
kun er snakk om Bill of Rights og andre senere tillegg, jeg antar det ikke
st�r noe s�rlig om rettigheter i selve grunnloven (men jeg har ikke full
oversikt over den).
Den f�derale ankedomstolen for "second circuit" har i en avgj�relse fra
januar i �r uttalt at det andre tilleggets bestemmelser om v�pen *ikke* kan
anvendes mot statene.(*) Og s� har det i l�pet av �ret kommet en rekke andre
saker om dette, og minst �n har kommet til motsatt resultat.
(*) Se "Second Circuit Holds Second Amendment Not Applicable to States"
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2009/02/second-circuit.html
February 10, 2009
(det f�lgende er noe rotete og neppe komplett)
District of Columbia v. Heller: What's Next?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9538
by Robert A. Levy
Og her er en noen saker til:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King
(sa ja til incorporation, men skal opp p� ny, denne gang i plenum)
Citizens can challenge state, local gun laws
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/20/BA1V1760BI.DTL
(04-20) 19:10 PDT San Francisco -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday that
private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws by invoking the
constitutional right to bear arms - the first such ruling in the nation - but
upheld a ban on firearms at gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in
Pleasanton.
The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
followed last year's landmark Supreme Court decision that the Constitution's
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns for
self-defense.
The high court struck down a handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., a
federal enclave, and did not say whether the Second Amendment also applied to
state and local laws. Nor did the court spell out the extent of the
government's authority to regulate firearms, although it said guns could be
excluded from "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Ninth Circuit to re-hear Nordyke case en banc [plenum]
July 30, 7:59 AMSeattle Gun Rights ExaminerDave Workman
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d30-Ninth-Circuit-to-rehear-Nordyke-case-en-banc
[Google News: "NRA v. Chicago"]
STATUS OF PENDING EN BANC CASES
August 3, 2009
This report is provided for case identification and background information
only and does not reflect the views of the court. When a case is heard or
reheard en banc, the en banc court assumes jurisdiction over the entire case,
see 28 U.S.C. � 46(c), regardless of the issue or issues that may have caused
any member of the Court to vote to hear the case en banc. Summerlin v.
Stewart, 309 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002)
Nordyke v. King, 07-15763
Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009)
Order Taking Case En Banc: 2009 WL (9th Cir. July 29, 2009)
Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: July 29, 2009
Status: To be calendared the week of September 21, 2009, in San Francisco,
California
Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available
Subject Matter: Appeal of summary judgment in 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 action
brought by gun show promoters challenging the constitutionality of county
ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms on county property.
Holding: Not yet decided
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/view.php?pk_id=0000000037
RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
vs.
MARY V. KING; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/enbanc/07-15763pfr.pdf
(argumenter for en banc + domsagj�relsen)
"There are three doctrinal ways the Second Amendment might apply to the
states: (1) direct application, (2) incorporation by the Privileges or
Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or (3) incorporation by the
Due Process Clause of the same Amendment.
Supreme Court precedent forecloses the first option. The Bill of Rights
directly applies only to the federal government. Barron v. Mayor of Balt., 32
U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247-51, 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833). "Although the Supreme Court
has incorporated many clauses of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has never explicitly
overruled Barron." Nordyke III, 319 F.3d at 1193 n.3 (Gould, J., specially
concurring). Therefore, the Second Amendment [**12] does not directly apply
to the states. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L. Ed.
588 (1875) (citing Barron as a basis for the conclusion that "[t]he second
amendment . . . means no more than that [the right to keep and bear arms]
shall not be infringed by Congress"); see also Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S.
252, 265, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886) (concluding that the Second
Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National
government, and not upon that of the State").
We are similarly barred from considering incorporation through the Privileges
or Immunities Clause. The Clause provides that "[n]o State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, � 1. Under the Slaughter-House
Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), this language protects
only those rights that derive from United States citizenship, but not those
general civil rights independent of the Republic's existence, see id. at
74-75. The former include only [*447] rights the Federal Constitution grants
or the national government enables, but not those preexisting rights the Bill
of Rights merely protects from federal invasion. Id. at 76- 80. [**13] The
Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore,
the Constitution did not grant it. See, e.g., Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2797
("[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the
First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right."). It necessarily
follows that the Privileges or Immunities Clause did not protect the right to
keep and bear arms because it was not a right of citizens of the United
States. See Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 553; cf. Presser, 116 U.S. at 266-67
(holding that the "right to associate with others as a military company" is
not a privilege of citizens of the United States).
The final avenue for incorporation is that by which other provisions of the
Bill of Rights have come to bind the states: selective incorporation through
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Duncan v.
Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S. Ct. 1444, 20 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1968) (right to
criminal jury); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, 12 L. Ed. 2d 653
(1964) (privilege against compelled self incrimination); Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) (right to
counsel); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 86
Ohio Law Abs. 513 (1961) (exclusion of evidence obtained by unreasonable
search and seizure); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84
L. Ed. 1213 (1940) (Establishment Clause)."
---
[Eugene Volokh, July 29, 2009 at 6:34pm]
Ninth Circuit Will Rehear Nordyke v. King En Banc:
That's the decision in which the Circuit held that the Second Amendment was
incorporated against the states, and also that counties could . despite that
-- bar guns from county property (at least the fairgrounds and the fairground
parking lots involved in that particular challenge).
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248906855
Maloney v. Rice: The Nunchaku Case
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/mvc.html
BonusUSA:
Op-Ed Contributors
Questions for Judge Sotomayor
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13sotomayor.html?src=sch
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, is
scheduled to appear today at a confirmation hearing before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The Op-Ed editors asked seven legal experts to pose the
questions they would like to hear the nominee answer.
1. Advocacy of "states' rights" has long been considered a hallmark of
conservative judicial philosophy. Recently, however, we have seen the advent
of what might be called "blue states' rights," as progressive states seek to
provide greater consumer, environmental and antidiscrimination protection
than the federal government, while business seeks to strike down such
measures as pre-empted by federal law.
What is your view of the role of federalism in our constitutional system? And
how has that view affected your rulings in the cases that have come before
you concerning whether federal laws pre-empt state laws or causes of action?
-- KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, a professor of law at Stanford
Gun Rights Expansion Fails in Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23guns.html?src=sch
Every state except Illinois and Wisconsin allows concealed weapons, but the
statutes concerning who is eligible to carry one vary widely by state. The
amendment defeated Wednesday would have allowed gun owners with permits from
states with looser restrictions to transport their guns to states with
tougher restrictions; it would not have allowed the use of concealed weapons
in Illinois and Wisconsin.
Critics of the amendment argued that it would undermine state and local
gun-control laws, and accused Republican supporters, typically staunch
defenders of states' rights, of hypocrisy.
How To Pronounce Sotomayor. Hear the new SCOTUS nominee pronounce her own
name.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219047/
By Andy Bowers. Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 11:59 AM ET
--
Thomas Skogestad
The Half-Million-Dollar WienerHow can New York City hot dog vendors afford a
monthly rent of $53,558? (Aug. 12, 2009) By Meredith Simons
http://www.slate.com/id/2224941/
Thomas Skogestad
| I Aftenposten 6. august kommenterer USA-korrespondent Alf Ole Ask den da
| forest�ende godkjennelsen av Sonia Sotomayor som h�yesterettsdommer.(*)
|
| 1. Abort ble ikke innf�rt av H�yestrett i USA. Dette er en s� latterlig
| p�stand at den strengt tatt ikke fortjener videre kommentar.
Dette er en s�nn h�y-p�-p�re-innledning men s�nn i ettertid �nsket man greide
� luke ut f�r man postet. (Rantingen i news:<34552988...@horisont.pvv.ntnu.no>
ble vel litt begrenset etter at jeg slettet noen avsnitt, s� det er vel mest
rambling igjen.)
Allerede nevnte Rosen skriver i "The Day After Roe":
The results might not be what you expect. The day after Roe fell, of course,
abortion would be neither legal nor illegal throughout the United States.
Instead, the states and Congress would be free to ban, protect, or regulate
abortion as they saw fit. But in many of the fifty states, and ultimately in
Congress, the overturning of Roe would probably ignite one of the most
explosive political battles since the civil-rights movement, if not the
Civil War. A careful look at how the pieces of the Rubik's Cube might begin
to turn the day after Roe suggests that access to abortion wouldn't
necessarily become less widely available than it is now; that the Democrats
could gain politically, perhaps even seizing the White House and both
chambers of Congress; and that, when the dust settles, in five or ten or
thirty years, early-term abortions would be protected and late-term ones
restricted.
Throughout American history, the Supreme Court, often derided as the least
democratic branch of the federal government, has, paradoxically, best
maintained its legitimacy when it has functioned as the most democratic
branch.that is, when it has deferred to the constitutional views of
Congress, the president, and the country as a whole. For all the invective
initially generated by Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed school
segregation, the decision was supported by more than half of the country
when it was handed down in 1954, a time when southern minorities were
blocking Congress from enacting the civil-rights legislation that the public
supported. ...
Roe v. Wade was an entirely different matter. The Court's decision, in 1973,
to strike down abortion laws in forty-six states and the District of
Columbia was high-handed, and represents one of the few times in history
that the Court leaped ahead of a national consensus. In every Gallup Poll
since soon after Roe was decided, small minorities of Americans--in the 20
percent range on each side--have said that abortion should be always illegal
or always legal, while a large majority has said it should be legal under
some circumstances and especially at the beginning of pregnancy. Later, the
Court continued to ignore popular opinion when it struck down, in the name
of Roe, many practices enthusiastically supported by the public, including
spousal-notification laws, parental-consent laws, and informed-consent
requirements. Critics of Roe v. Wade often compare it to the Dred Scott
decision on slavery before the Civil War. In both cases, the Supreme Court
overturned political compromises that national majorities supported,
provoking dramatic political backlashes.
June 2006 Atlantic
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will set off tectonic shifts
in the American political landscape not seen since the civil-rights
movement--or perhaps even the Civil War
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/roe
by Jeffrey Rosen
Men alts�, abort i USA er eldre enn 1973. (Det er forresten mange her i
landet som har f�tt det for seg at parlamentarismen ble innf�rt i 1884.)
Rosen har ogs� skrevet
The Case Against Sotomayor
Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
The New Republic
Post Date Monday, May 04, 2009
Som f�rte til dette:
Above all, Rosen says he's drawn a lesson from how his initial essay was
treated by people of both ideological stripes. He won't be blogging any
more. He wants to spend more time with the material before hitting "send."
'Blog Entry' Sparks Furor Over Sotomayor
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104754798
by David Folken May 31, 2009
Jeg har veldig god erfaring med � oppdage feil akkurat idet jeg trykker
"send" (dvs. taster C-C C-c i Gnus), men det var ikke tilfelle her. Jeg har
ogs� meget god erfaring med at jeg har lagt postingen til side i noen timer,
s� poster jeg fordi jeg tror at alt som skal v�re med er med, men s�, en time
etter at jeg postet husker jeg ENDELIG hva det var jeg hadde glemt og dessverre
utelatt fra postingen. Og s� har jeg god erfaring med at jeg neste dag plutselig
f�r en lysp�re over hodet og det sl�r meg hva slags t�v det er jeg har postet.
Thomas Skogestad
--
Safety: As Speed Limits Rise, So Do Death Tolls
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/health/research/21safe.html?src=sch
The "failed policy of increased speed limits," researchers write, was to
blame for an estimated 12,500 deaths over a 10-year period.
Thomas Skogestad
| Og her er en noen saker til:
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
�The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City of Chicago on December
18, 2008. The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
and combined with a similar case, NRA v. Chicago. Oral argument was May 26,
2009, and the court issued its opinion on June 2, 2009, rejecting the appeal,
allowing the Chicago and Oak Park gun regulations to stand
The Second Amendment Foundation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for
certiorari on behalf of his plaintiffs. The NRA has separately filed on
behalf of their plaintiffs. Certiorari ["anketillatelse"] was granted on
September 30, 2009.�
-
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1521.htm
-
Today's Orders
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 10:02 am | Kristina Moore | Print This Post
The Court has granted certiorari in the following 10 cases. The full order
list is available here.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-40/
-
Court case will test extent of gun rights
Posted 3d 11h ago
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-09-30-guns_N.htm
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court raised the stakes for its new term and
for gun owners nationwide by agreeing Wednesday to hear an appeal from
firearms owners in Chicago. The question in the case goes to the heart of the
Second Amendment and could become a major test of the court led by Chief
Justice John Roberts.
The gun owners are challenging an appeals court ruling that the Second
Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to guns applies only to federal
law, not to state and local regulations.
Thomas Skogestad
--
The right to arm bears + the right to bear arms
http://comics.com/committed/2009-09-30/
The right to bear arms
http://comics.com/the_knight_life/2009-09-10/