Category Archives: Patrick
The LPOV Group sits down for a wide ranging discussion of Article VI Clause 2, the Supremacy Clause.
When California passes a law that bans the possession, distribution or sale of Shark fins in the State, a Chinese-American Neighborhood Association sues, claiming that they are being discriminated against by the law. There is a claim of Equal Protection, a claim under the Commerce Clause, and a claim that the United States already has laws dealing with Shark fins, and that those those laws should take precedence over California’s law.
Is there any merit to the claims? Is it racist to outlaw Shark fins? Does the law interfere with Interstate Commerce? Most of all, does the Federal law take supremacy over the States law banning shark fins?
In Maryland, the High Court rules that a man who sweated on a chair and was convicted of rape based on that DNA sample, which he declined to give voluntarily. Does this mean that we have to wear clean suits everywhere from now on? The two conditions the Court says are necessary to satisfy the 4th Amendment. What lessons are there for us based on the idea that inadvertently shed DNA is now open game for Law Enforcement?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. – 2nd Amendment
“Applying the analysis set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the panel then held that it did not need to apply a particular standard of heightened scrutiny to the San Diego policy because the “good cause” restriction amounted to a destruction of the Second Amendment right altogether. The panel concluded that San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” – Judge O’’Scannlain, 9th Circuit Court
When a San Diego man wanted a Concealed Weapons Permit in San Diego, the local Sheriff told him “Nope.” The case made its way to the 9th Circuit Court where Heller and McDonald came into play in striking down California’s “good cause” requirement.