As widely expected, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's 28-year old ban on handgun sales, and struck down the auditing board part of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting legislation enacted after Enron, saying both were unconstitutional.
The courts however did leave open some hope for gun control laws, suggesting that while total bans were unconstitutional such as Chicago's law, some limitations on gun sales were permissible. It was not the sweeping Second Amendment ruling that firearms advocates wanted. However this almost certainly means state and local firearms laws will now be challenged across the country.
As far as the SOX auditing board goes, the court found it unconstitutional on grounds that the board was appointed by the SEC, and not by the President. The court agreed. However, again the court didn't give the sweeping ruling that corporate advocates wanted, mainly that whole SOX law was unconstitutional on the grounds that the SEC couldn't regulate corporate accounting in that fashion.
Not a real win for anyone today.
It was a win for the 2nd amendment and the Bill of Rights today.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the Bill of Rights were put to a public vote today, the 2nd Amendment is probably the only one that would pass in the red states.
ReplyDeleteIf only Republicans were as open minded about the 14th.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the Bill of Rights were put to a public vote today, the 2nd Amendment is probably the only one that would pass in the red state
ReplyDeleteUm ok, well you go do that, I'll be here in reality...which is where the SCOTUS had to be to make their decision.
If only Republicans were as open minded about the 14th.
I'm sure they would be if illegals weren't putting such a strain on the system. If we didn't have any social programs then who would care if they were here or not?
Fact is they are here in a very large number, and adding 12 million people to a system without having them contribute will put a strain on it.
Also
ReplyDelete"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"
Meaning it is up for debate and their decision to not like is in essence up for debate :-)