Elaine McArdle has an article at the Harvard Law Bulletin about the prospects for the Supreme Court overturning Parker, or upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right. I do think they’re likely to uphold, but it’s by no means a sure thing, and I do think that gun-rights advocates are taking a gamble.
It would have been nice if the framers could have foregone that purpose clause, because it certainly allows gun opponents to throw a lot of obfuscatory mud around the issue. I wonder how the prospects would be for an amendment to remove it? That might be the only relief if the court rules the wrong way.
Does anyone really believe that Hillary didn’t know about this?
Rosen’s attorney, Paul Mark Sandler, did not return a call asking for comment. Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer on campaign finance matters, David Kendall, said, “The Senate Campaign Committee has fully cooperated with the investigation. Mr. Rosen worked hard for the campaign, and we trust that when all the facts are in, he will be cleared.”
The businessman who hosted the event, Peter Paul, has told federal authorities that it cost more than $1 million and that he had been surprised when he saw that most of the contributions were not reported.
The money from the fund-raiser went to Mrs. Clinton’s successful campaign for a Senate seat from New York, the Democrats’ national Senate campaign organization and a state Democratic Party committee.
The joint fund raising made the rules more complicated because the gala raised both “hard money” — funds given to candidates subject to federal limits — and “soft money” that was unregulated and unlimited under the former campaign finance law.
Underreporting the cost of the event allowed the committee to spend less of the coveted hard money, contributions that unlike soft money could be used to cover Clinton’s campaigning costs.
Federal law governing such joint fund-raisers was designed to prevent joint committees from circumventing restrictions on the contributions given directly to candidates.
Peter Paul claims she did. I wonder if she’ll have to take the stand in a trial? And whether or not she will “recall” anything?
One of the few policies that Bill Clinton pushed with which I agreed was free trade. Unfortunately, it sounds like his wife has abandoned it:
Mrs. Clinton’s decision to make Mr. Gephardt an official member of her economic team is a blunt repudiation of her husband’s strategy from 1992, when he won the White House in part by distancing himself from unions and protectionist elements in the Democratic base.
There’s always been a tension between the true Democrat liberals, and the forces of protection driven largely by their union constituencies. If support for free trade has collapsed among Dems, and they get into power, it will be very bad news for not just the US, but potentially devastating for the world economy, particularly in the most vulnerable and poorest countries, still struggling to develop.
Remember the first Fourth after 9/11? We were all relieved when nothing happened. Well, except for the isolated incident of a man shooting up the El Al counter at LAX, but there was no indication of any terrorism connection. (Unless the fellow has an Al Qaeda employee benefits pamphlet in his back pocket, it doesn