Blog

Professor Rotunda is looking quite dapper in his testimony, though I do have a photo of him without his trademark bowtie.

Definitely check out this article by Brian Dohert in Reason Magazine on the aftermath of McDonald v. Chicago.

With the promise of reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause left unfulfilled, perhaps McDonald isn’t so revolutionary. Perhaps it is merely the final cementing of a middle-of-the-road consensus about guns that had been solidifying since the last wave of strong gun control regulations in the mid-1990s, the same wave that many Democrats think hurt their party in the 1994 and 2000 elections.

With shall-issue carry laws sweeping the nation over the past 25 years with no commensurate public mayhem, and with strong gun prohibitions largely absent from the national political stage, a basic understanding of a limited right to own guns rules the republic. No doubt, there are committed partisans for a “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?” stance, as well as dedicated keep-guns-out-of-everyone’s-hands warriors.

But both sides are fighting a war as relevant as the Crimean to most Americans. No guns are being pried out of anyone’s cold, dead hands. Still, it’s worth remembering that while alcohol prohibition is over, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a highly regulated pain-in-the-ass trying to run a bar, or that one’s access to booze isn’t highly circumscribed in various localities. That’s also the likely future for guns in a post-McDonald America where total prohibition is no longer an option.

Recently, I was invited to record a podcast on McDonald v. Chicago with the University of Nebraska College of Law’s American Constitution Society chapter. Check out their new web site here.

As you would imagine, I probably disagree with the ACS students interviewing me. As Professor Marvin Ammori put it on his blog post at Balkinzation:

Also, I can safely bet he is not a member of ACS–a libertarian, I think.

Safe bet. Though I would describe myself more as a classical liberal.

Omaid and Bobby at the ACS were vary gracious hosts and asked thoughtful questions. I really enjoyed it.

The first round of podcasts includes interviews with Lawrence Lessig, Eugene Volokh, Jen Moreno, and myself. Quite amazing company.

You can download my podcast here.

LOL @ Onion:

Historians and scholars nationwide heralded the discovery of a children’s menu on the back of one of the four original charters of the U.S. Constitution, Archivist of the United States John Carlin said Monday.

The menu—on the back of Article I, which establishes a bicameral Congress comprising the Senate and the House of Representatives—provides dining options for children under 7.

Here is my favorite part of the article:

Until now, scholars had focused on the elegant calligraphy on the Constitution’s front, entirely overlooking the reverse side, which features two columns of fancifully named menu items, such as Yankee Doodle Macaroni, Jumpin’ Johnnycakes, and Eagle Fingers.

“The wording of the Constitution is general, necessitating interpretation, and the same can be said for its children’s menu,” Carlin said. “We do not know exactly what the framers of the Constitution meant by ‘Eagle Fingers.’ Strict constructionists are likely to assume that they were strips of eagle flesh fried in batter, but loose constructionists might argue that the term was an amusing way to encourage children to eat their chicken or grouse.”