Certainly One Cannot Ban Cross Burning In

The Constitution Does Not Trust Judges To Make Determinations Of Criminal Guilt.

What Is A Moderate Interpretation Of The Text? Halfway Between What It Really Means And What You'd Like It To Mean?

There Is No Basis In Text, Tradition, Or Even In Contemporary Practice (if That Were Enough), For Finding In The Constitution A Right To Demand Judicial Consideration Of Newly Discovered Evidence Of Innocence Brought Forward After Conviction. My Concern Is That In Making Life Easier For Ourselves We Not Appear To Make It Harder For The Lower Federal Courts, Imposing Upon Them The Burden Of Regularly Analyzing Newly-discovered-evidence-of-innocence Claims In Capital Cases (in Which Event Such Federal Claims, It Can Confidently Be Predicted, Will Become Routine And Even Repetitive).

The Court's Decision Reflects The Philosophy That Judges Should Endure Whatever Interpretive Distortions It Takes In Order To Correct A Supposed Flaw In The Statutory Machinery. That Philosophy Ignores The American People's Decision To Give Congress '[a]ll Legislative Powers' Enumerated In The Constitution. They Made Congress, Not This Court, Responsible For Both Making Laws And Mending Them.

But I Also Believe That A Lot Of Gun Owners Would Agree That Ak-47s Belong In The Hands Of Soldiers, Not On The Streets Of Our Cities.