Month: December 2003

I don’t do much writing about legal issues, I know. Winter term, when I am taking a class on Terrorism in The 21st Century (presumably focusing on the legalities), and spring term, when I am finally taking Constitutional Law, will probably give more opportunities. My subjects this term are of less general interest. Unless you … Read more

This isn’t cool. The Michigan Republican Party has asked its members to turn over holiday card lists — complete with their analysis of the political and religious affiliations of their friends and family and their positions on issues such as abortion and gun control. Didn’t phone companies used to ask you to do this? I … Read more

I already like this guy. This guy could not annoy me more if he tried.

The bad news: via Taranto we see that a self-described Democrat has written an opinion piece about Bush hatred, and how it won’t win an election. As opinion pieces go, it’s fairly good, especially as it does recognize the fact (often obscured by our own passions and hobbies) that most of the population does not … Read more

Blogging of the President is having its first “Blog Burst” tomorrow, on the topic: “the Internet and Politics, what does it mean?‘ ” Here’s my contribution, one day early: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” –A.J. Liebling Suddenly, all of us–or at least, many more of us–do own a … Read more

Ya’ll remember Bob Novak, right? The conservative columnist who touched off a media feeding frenzy on his putative right-wing allies by naming Plame in a column? In the immortal words of Whitesnake: Here he goes again on his own (though without Tawny Kitain, it must be said) . . . . In his latest indictment … Read more

*I recalled Prof. Anastaplo while paging through Professor Volohk‘s writings on the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), which generally argue that the Second Amendment is a personal right (like the 1st Amendment) and not merely a right afforded to the state or community (like, for example, the 10th Amendment). Professor Volohk bases his argument, in part, on the supposed original intent of the founders. Professor Anastaplo, on the other hand, argues that the original intent of the founders was precisely the opposite, and reads the Second Amendment to convey a community right. Indeed, in his much-earlier The Amendments to the Constitution, Professor Anastaplo considers and refutes (pre-refutes?) many of Professor Volohk’s better “original intent” arguments. (Which is not to say that Professor Volohk is wrong in his analysis or history — only that it’s not the open-and-shut case sometimes suggested by Professor Volohk.)