Preemptive Pardons

 

On his way out the door of the White House, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. used his Constitutional pardon power to issue a series of "preemptive blanket pardons" to multiple persons who might have had places on Donald Trump's rumored "enemies list" (if such there be).  Can a President do that?  Really??

The Constitutional powers of the President include

...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Because the wording is so broad, it would seem to allow the President to grant pardons for offenses against the United States even if those offenses have not yet been charged, or even 'known'.  That interpretation, however, has a poison pill hiding within it.

If we allow uncharged offenses to be preemptively pardoned, what's to prevent a President having his underlings commit crimes, assassinations, Constitutional violations, and then simply preemptively pardoning the malefactors?  We have just given that President the powers of a King, exactly what the left has been warning us Donald Trump wants to become.

To avoid that lethal scenario, it must be true that the President may only pardon offenses that have been (at a minimum) charged, although even that is subject to some abuse:  "Harry just assassinated the Speaker of the House on my orders.  Quick, indict him for it so I can pardon him."  That's exactly where "preemptive pardons" have placed us.

We'll need a Supreme Court opinion on this one, and we need it pronto.  Charge Bennie Thompson with obstructing justice by destroying evidence collected by his J6 committee, loser appeals, loser appeals, until it reaches SCOTUS.  The result — I've got my fingers crossed — will be that, no, a President cannot issue a pardon without stating what offense is being pardoned.

...And then platoons of DC denizens will all move to non-extradition countries.

 

18 USC 241

 

Tonight, I heard — for the first time — a political commentator reference 18 USC 241 as the tool with which to fight back against the 'lawfare' recently waged against Donald Trump.  That person was Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, talking to Carl Higbee on his NewsMax program.

For those unfamiliar with 18 USC 241 "Conspiracy against rights", here is the relevant text:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This applies to NYS AG Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron as follows:  they conspired to interfere with the defendant's freedom to engage in business and to enter into contracts.

This applies to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan as follows:  they conspired to interfere with the defendant's right to be protected against self-incrimination.

This applies to US AG Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Special Prosecutor Jack Smith as follows:  they conspired to interfere with the (former) President's power to declassify documents as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Navy v Egan.

This applies to US AG Merrick Garland, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, and Judge Tanya Chutkan as follows:  they conspired to indict the (former) President for exercising his duty "to see the laws be faithfully executed".

I look forward to seeing all of them in federal prison for "not more than ten years" on each count.  That day cannot come soon enough.

 

Now, This Is Funny

 

A guy in Ohio put up a FaceBook page that looked suspiciously like what the Parma (OH) PD might have for their public-facing... umm... face, except that any such official page that contained the stuff that was on that page would have gotten the Mayor and the Chief of Police ridden out of town on a rail.

Naturally, the police arrested him for mocking them.  Judicial activity ensued.  Lots of judicial activity.  So much that it is now wending its way toward The Supreme Court of the United States™ ®U.S.Pat.Ofc.

It is now at the stage of a petition for certiorari, and thus there are amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs.

The Onion has weighed in on the issue with its own brief that you should go read.

The most serious part of the whole thing is this:

The petition for certiorari should be granted, the rights of the people vindicated, and various historical wrongs remedied.  The Onion would welcome any one of the three, particularly the first.

The rest of it is screamingly funny, and all of the citations and footnotes are true.

—==+++==—

Update Oct 29, 2022:  The Babylon Bee has added its voice to the hue and cry for a writ.  While not as funny (or as timely) as that of The Onion, It nevertheless makes some good points, especially that getting acquitted of such a criminal charge is both (a) "cold comfort", and (b) not guaranteed.

 

Mar-A-Lago

 

We're about 6 weeks out from the FBI raid on the Presidential dwelling on Florida's Atlantic coast, and it may be that all the dust that's going to settle — or most of it, anyway — has already done so.  Time to opine.

What we have here, net, are employees of the Executive Branch claiming the power to overrule their boss, the Chief Executive of the United States, the President.  Yes, we're dealing here with a former President who no longer has the authority to classify or declassify, but who once did.  Those employees of the Executive Branch now hold that any declassifications that happened on the former President's watch reverted to the status quo ante as of January 20th, 2021.  That's nonsense.

The Supreme Court has already come down on this issue in Navy v. Egan, and they were quite clear that the Constitution vests an elected President with far-ranging power over the classification status of both documents and persons.

"But," you object, "aren't there rules and procedures surrounding that topic?"  Yes, there are, and employees of the Executive Branch are required, as a condition of employment, to adhere to them.

The President, however, is not 'an employee of the Executive Branch'.  The President is the Executive.  The voters did that.  The Executive Branch exists to carry out the policies of the Chief Executive.  The Constitution did that.

The net effect, the 'takeaway' from all this, is that the President sets the rules, and everyone else follows the rules.  Because of that (in SCOTUS' words) 'Constitutional investment' of the President, it is a legal impossibility for any President, current or former, to be in possession of classified documents that existed at the end of that President's term of office.  The simple act of removing such from the White House ipso facto declassifies them.

It's also worth noting that the originals remain in the place where they were created, and only copies are distributed.  If a document required a Presidential signature, it is returned to its origin point after signing.  Therefore, Trump did not have any originals at Mar-A-Lago.  They were all copies, with the originals still residing in their permanent home.  The FBI wasn't there to reacquire irreplaceable fragments of American History.  They were there to deprive Trump of declassified documents that, absent some bizarre legal contortions, he was entitled to possess.  This seems intuitively obvious despite certain judges deciding that "separation of powers" doesn't really apply here.

In any case, Obama still has a warehouse full (really!) of documents he took with him on January 20th 2017, and there hasn't been any effort at all to reacquire those.  If the FBI were to apply whatever rules they're using here evenly across the board, there wouldn't be any such thing as 'a Presidential library'.  Why are the documents in Trump's possession so important that they can't be allowed into the Trump Presidential Library?  There are very few categories that plausibly fit the behavior we watched last August 8th.  Even voicing any of them risks being branded as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

The difference between 'conspiracy theory' and 'breaking news' is now about three weeks.  Pundits have already started suggesting that what the FBI wanted from Mar-A-Lago were documents related to the FBI's (active) involvement in the Russian Collusion accusations, documents that would prove the FBI to be irreparably corrupt.

Hell, who needs documents for that?

—==+++==—

Update July 15, 2024:  Judge Aileen Cannon today dismissed the Mar-A-Lago Documents case on the grounds that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed in violation of the Constitution's Appointments clause and its Appropriations clause.  Case Closed.

 

Hallelujah!

 

Today, June 23rd, 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas, born on this day in 1948, delivered the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking at the beating heart of New York's flagrantly unconstitutional Sullivan Act.

The Sullivan Act, passed in 1911, establishes strict gun control within New York State with particular application within New York City.  It guarantees that obtaining a personal firearm is going to be a long and costly bureaucratic nightmare.  Beyond that, obtaining permission to actually carry that firearm on your person is nearly impossible.  A few years back, I posed the question "How many concealed-carry permits are there in New York City?"  The answer I derived was '2,291'.  In a city of 8.8 million people, that is statistically zero.

Two New York residents who had 'possession' permits for their pistols (valid only at their home or business) wanted to carry those firearms concealed on their persons and were denied because, in keeping with the Sullivan Act, they were unable to demonstrate to the examiner that they had a need to be armed beyond simple self-defense.  Five other states (you can almost guess who they are, can't you?) impose similar or identical restrictions.  The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association funded the several lawsuits resulting from that denial, culminating at the Supreme Court as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Justice Thomas has several times in the past castigated his fellow justices for turning away 2nd amendment cases that were similar to Bruen, and it appears his complaining has finally borne fruit.  The 6-3 decision gave Thomas the pen since the 2nd amendment seemed to have been his pet project.  Finally, he has the ability to author a strong defense of the 2nd's original meaning.  The 135 page decision will take some effort, no doubt, but given Thomas' erudition, it will be worth every minute.

Thank you, Justice Thomas.  We have been waiting so long for this.  Happy birthday.

 

Update:  I have managed to actually read the official opinion (footnotes omitted) and there is something else in there that I didn't realize originally: NYSRPA v Bruen also explicitly instructs lower courts that when dealing with 2A issues strict scrutiny is the applicable level of judicial review.  That means that any new or existing law, when it appears before a lower court, the state must now make a compelling case that the law at issue is both compliant with the Constitution and necessary for the public safety.  When challenged, NYS will have to defend its $445 fee for doing a background check beyond that done (for free) by the federal government.  Good luck with that.  They will have to defend the overly intrusive 32 page questionnaire each applicant is required to complete.  Good luck with that, too.  Basically, the entire Sullivan Act is now at risk of being gutted like a perch.

 

What Hath Roe Wrought?

 

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Roe v Wade centered around the topic of abortion.  Up to that point, some states allowed it, others prohibited it, and still others regulated it.  The 7-2 decision in Roe was based on an implied right to privacy originating in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The effect of that decision was that the law on abortion became uniform throughout the 50 states: permitted absolutely in the first trimester, regulated in the second, and prohibited in the third.

When Justice Lewis Powell retired from the court in 1987, President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to replace him.  This was the first of the contentious Supreme Court nominations, so ferocious that it spawned a new verb, to bork (v. tr.), defined as

"To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually to prevent his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way." 

The attacks on Bork were primarily based on his response to a question regarding Roe v Wade, specifically that he thought the Supreme Court should not have opined on the topic since it was clearly a matter of state jurisdiction (that is, the way it was prior to Roe).  Bork's nomination hearings set the pattern for all subsequent Supreme Court nominations, the most recent being those for Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Roe has generated intense controversy over the decades since 1973, virtually none of it related to the notion of "federal legislative authority".

Until now.

Comes now before the court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that addresses a law in Mississippi banning abortion after 15 weeks (that Roe presumably permits).  JWHO sued because this was a contraction from the previous limit of 24 weeks.  A firestorm has erupted over the leak of a draft decision in the case that, were it the majority decision, would overturn both Roe and Planned Parenthood v Casey and return the entire issue into the hands of state legislatures as it was prior to Roe.

Article I section 8 of the Constitution begins: "Congress shall have power to..." and goes on to list 17 areas of concern that Congress shall have power to legislate in.  There is not a single one of those 17 that can be construed as providing federal jurisdiction over abortion or the states' methods of addressing that issue.

Bork was right, but Bork was an originalist.  He also, unlike too many Americans, too many American judges, and too many American Congressmen, understood the Constitution.

For reasons that are not at all obvious, we apparently now have a Supreme Court that is as smart as Robert Bork.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy

 

Once upon a time, the New York Daily News was a reliably conservative outlet, the NY Daily Mirror was considered 'liberal', and the NY Post was a daily version of The Enquirer.  Somewhere along the way, the Mirror folded, the Daily News went hard left, and the Post became conservative.  I wasn't living there at the time so I didn't pay attention and can't tell you 'when' or 'why'.

The Post yesterday printed a story, "The real meaning of Democrats’ Supreme Court panic", about the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy noting:

This is why Democrats celebrate obviously superlegal decisions like Roe v. Wade: There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, but they would prefer not to battle that issue out at the electoral level.  The Supreme Court allows them to hand down their policy from the mountaintop without having to subject those policies to public scrutiny...  And that means that any reversal of such policy by a Supreme Court that actually reads the Constitution as it was written is a threat to Democratic hegemony.

(They're correct, but for the wrong reason.)

Also once upon a time, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked (possibly in commentary on Roe v Wade) that he couldn't find a right to privacy in the Constitution.  It appears that Scalia hadn't read the Constitution as far as the Ninth Amendment.  It's possible Scalia wouldn't have said that had he a better appreciation for the 9th.  If he also appreciated the 10th, he might have voted to kick Roe back to the state where it originated.

For the benefit of those who aren't able to recite the Constitution verbatim, I quote it here for you (commatosis in the original):

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In modern American English, this means "just because we only listed a few rights here doesn't mean that's an exhaustive list. We just didn't want to waste the ink and parchment on something any idiot could figure out."  That is: there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, right there in the 9th; there is a right to travel freely, a right to smoke marijuana, a right to marry whomsoever you please, right there in the 9th; there are all sorts of rights in the Constitution, right there in the 9th.

And the 10th:

AMENDMENT X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In modern English:  "if we didn't give some particular power to Congress, Congress doesn't have that power; it's a 'state thing' or a 'person thing', but it's not a 'Congress thing'".

An originalist Justice who "actually reads the Constitution as it was written" is exactly what we need.  In fact, we need eight of them since only Clarence Thomas currently fits the description.  More originalists?  Yes, please, and hurry!  A mere half-dozen originalists would already have struck down the National Firearms Act, NAFTA, NDAA, the War Powers Act, and hundreds of similar Congressional and Executive usurpations.

As to Roe v Wade, this clearly is a topic within the purview of the 10th amendment.  It should never have been heard at the Supreme Court.  Alas, Robert Bork said exactly that in his confirmation hearings and paid a dear price for having too much knowledge of the Constitution, too much honesty, and too much naïveté.

As to Kennedy being a 'swing vote', Democrat angst over his imminent departure is misplaced.  Kennedy voted with the majority in Janus, NIFLA v Becerra, Trump v Hawaii, Ohio v AMEX, and dozens of other cases that cause Democratic wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Why are they so upset at him retiring?  Do they think his replacement will be worse?  No, they fear his replacement will be an originalist.

 

Clarence Thomas Stumbles

 

Slate.com is complaining about a recent decision by SCOTUS written by Clarence Thomas and labeling it "one of the meanest Supreme Court decisions ever".  Well, yes, it probably is, but that's not Clarence Thomas' fault.  For one thing, the Chief Justice assigns the writing of opinions based on whim, more than anything else.  For another, all SCOTUS judges are bound by a concept called stare decisis, and can breach it only under the oddest of circumstances.

SLATE has found one set of such circumstances.

The key to the problem is another concept, prosecutorial immunity.  By this is meant that a DA cannot be held responsible when an injustice happens, e.g.: the wrong guy gets convicted.  There are obvious exceptions, such as when a prosecutor deliberately sandbags an innocent victim.  Being an incompetent prosecutor, however, is not a crime, so prosecutors can always put on their 'stupid' face and walk away from their misdeeds.  This is what happened in Connick v Thompson and SCOTUS largely has their hands tied.

That's the problem.  Prosecutors are not idiots, but they play one when they're in front of a disciplinary board of the Bar Association, and they almost always walk away unscathed.  The DUKE LaCrosse team case is an obvious exception.  There, the players were able to prove that the prosecutor targeted them for political purposes.  That prosecutor now sells burgers for the McDonald's Corporation.

Would you like to prevent future decisions like Connick v Thompson?   Silly question.  Yes, we'd all like to avoid the indignity of having our noses rubbed in our dysfunctional (soi-disant) 'justice' system.  The solution suggests itself.  'Prosecutorial immunity' is a flawed concept whose time has come and gone, and it's time for 'prosecutorial immunity' to go away as well.  When a DA or an AG withholds exculpatory evidence, even if there is no suspicion of wrong-doing, that prosecutor needs to have their license lifted, to be disbarred.  Forever.  In fifty states.

Too severe, you say?   How about 'executing the wrong guy'?   How about 'eighteen years in federal slam for somebody else's crime'?   No, it's not too severe.  In fact, it's the only way to make sure that prosecutors make 'justice' their first priority.  Absent this incentive, a prosecutor's first priority will be 'get the conviction'.  It's their ticket out of the DA's office.  God alone knows how many innocent people went to prison so that Rudy Giuliani could become America's Mayor.

Clarence Thomas clearly stumbled nonetheless.  After correctly interpreting the 14th amendment in the famous McDonald v Chicago, he can't claim ignorance.  Here was the perfect opportunity to point out that the 14th amendment guarantees 'equal protection under the law'.  Giving prosecutors a pass because they're prosecutors grants special privileges to one class at the expense of another.  Thomas should have struck down all laws offering prosecutorial immunity as repugnant to the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection (or at least offered that as his excuse for upholding the lower court's decision).

 

Justice Elena Kagan

 

Not surprisingly, Elena Kagan has been confirmed to be the 112th Justice of the Supreme Court.  This is a good opportunity to 'take inventory'.  We start with short bios of each of the current justices:

John Roberts, Chief Justice:  received a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979.  From 1979 until 1981 he clerked for a series of judges at various levels;  in 1981 he moved over to the DOJ, then the White House Counsel's office until 1986, when he practiced law in DC for three years.  In 1989 he went back to the DOJ until 1993, and then was in private practice until 2003 when he was appointed to the Court of Appeals for DC.  In 2005, G.W.Bush nominated him as Chief Justice, and he took his seat September 29, 2005.

Antonin Scalia:  received his LL.B. from Harvard Law School around 1960 and taught there until 1961.  He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961–1967, and taught law at U Virginia from 1967–1971.  He served the federal government in various law-related positions from 1971–1977.  He taught law at U Chicago from 1977–1982 and served on the American Bar Association 1981–1983.  He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982.  President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.

Anthony M. Kennedy:  received his LL.B. from Harvard Law School probably around 1960.  He was in private practice in California from 1961–1975.  In 1975, he was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  From 1965 to 1988, he was also a Professor of Constitutional Law at the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific.  President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.

Clarence Thomas:  received a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974.  He was admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974, and served as an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri from 1974–1977, an attorney with the Monsanto Company from 1977–1979, and Legislative Assistant to Senator John Danforth from 1979–1981.  From 1981–1982, he served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982–1990.  He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990.  President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School probably around 1959.  She served as a law clerk from 1959–1961.  From 1961–1963, she held administrative positions at Columbia U., taught law at Rutgers from 1963–1972, and at Columbia from 1972–1980.  She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980.  President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

Stephen G. Breyer:  received his LL.B. from Harvard Law School probably around 1964.  He served as a law clerk during the 1964 Term, as a Special Assistant to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Antitrust, 1965–1967, Harvard Law School, 1967–1994.  During his tenure at Harvard, he was also Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973, Special Counsel ofthe U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974–1975, and Chief Counsel of the committee, 1979–1980.  From 1980–1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990–1994.  He also served as a member of the United States Sentencing Commission, 1985–1989.  President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.

Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.:  his official SCOTUS biography does not give any information about his credentials, not that this should disqualify him, but his career seems to start around 1976 so it's logical to suppose his law degree also dates from 1976.  He served as a law clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976–1977.  He was Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981–1985, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985–1987, and U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987–1990.  He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990.  President George W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat January 31, 2006.

Sonia Sotomayor:  earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979 and served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.  She served as Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office from 1979–1984.  She then litigated international commercial matters in New York City at Pavia & Harcourt, where she served as an associate and then partner from 1984–1992.  In 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated her to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, and she served in that role from 1992–1998.  She served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1998–2009.  President Barack Obama nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and she assumed this role August 8, 2009.

There is not yet an official bio for Elena Kagan, but we do know something about her career so far, and it's fair to speculate that her bio, when it's posted, will look a lot like what's already here.

 

Assuming you had the stamina to wade through all of this, it's time to test you on your comprehension.  The eight justices profiled here have careers which total 221 years of experience -- prior to their becoming Supreme Court Justices.  Lots of it is in 'academia' (about 76 years worth, much of it teaching), and some of it counts as 'private practice' (about 43 years) and some of that overlaps because these guys and gals are Hermione Granger-ish over-achievers and often held more than one job.  The bulk of their experience, however, is time spent working at government jobs:  mostly judgeships, with the occasional AG, AAG, DA, or ADA position thrown in;  almost all of them were also 'law clerks' for prominent judges.

Which job in the 'justice system' do none of them have any experience with?

Defense attorney.

Every one of these Justices of the United States Supreme Court have prosecuted persons as part of their job as an [Assistant] Attorney for the Whatever of Wheresoever, but none of them have ever defended a person against a criminal charge.

Not one.

Ever.

And Elena Kagan won't break the mold.

Isn't it about time we had someone on the Supreme Court who has some experience defending us?

 

How to Write the Decision in McDonald v Chicago in 1 Page (no footnotes)

 

Early in March the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of McDonald v Chicago, a case pitting one Otis McDonald, a black resident of The Windy City against the city fathers (sic).  Otis wants a handgun so that he can protect himself, his family, and his property from the drug dealers who frequent his part of town, the poor part.  The city fathers (sic) are opposed to letting the peasants have arms for their defense.  You just never know what a peasant might do with such things.

Alan Gura of Heller v DC fame is lead attorney for the plaintiff and has written a brilliant brief arguing that the Second Amendment should be 'incorporated' against states, counties, and municipalities via the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment.  If it isn't already plain, let me make it so:  I think Gura is 100% correct on this issue and his strategy.  There is a problem, however.  For SCOTUS to incorporate via 'P or I' will overturn the 1873 Slaughterhouse decision.  'Overturning prior decisions' is something the Supreme Court prefers to avoid if at all possible.  Slaughterhouse, most modern Constitutional scholars agree, was decided incorrectly by an obviously biased court and represents 'bad precedent' at its worst.  A moral SCOTUS would have burned that decision to the ground decades ago, which tells you something about how long it's been since we had a moral SCOTUS...

Well, heck, if they don't want to overturn Slaughterhouse, I can help them out.  Herewith, the McDonald v Chicago decision in under one sheet of legal paper -- without reference to Slaughterhouse (footnotes omitted):

* * * * * * * * *

Plaintiff McDonald wishes to keep and bear a firearm within the city limits of Chicago for a lawful purpose but fears prosecution under the laws of the City of Chicago based on municipal firearms regulations.  Defendant City of Chicago pleads that the city has a 'substantial public safety interest' in minimizing the number of firearms within the city limits.

This court notes the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America which reads as follows (some punctuation eliminated for clarity):  "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."

The court further notes that said Constitution is a limited grant of authority from the people to the federal government and that, together with its amendments, is the Law Of The Land.

The court further notes that the term "well-regulated" meant (at the time of its adoption) "operating as intended" and retains that same meaning in perpetuity, and that the term "militia" refers to the whole body of the people acting on the basis of that original authority which has been lent (not surrendered) to the federal government.  All of this has been thoroughly covered in Heller and there is no need to plow that field again.

The remainder of the text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution declares that the (pre-existing and naturally-occurring) "right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed.  Unlike the First Amendment which declares that "Congress shall make no law...", the Second Amendment's requirement is much stricter: "shall not be infringed" certainly by the federal government, but this appears not to be limited strictly to any particular level of government.  Presumably the power of the federal government may be used, perhaps is to be used, to ensure that this right is not infringed anywhere.

We therefore confidently assert that the federal government may not infringe the (pre-existing naturally-occurring) "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as by such devices as the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which imposes significant fees, arbitrary waiting periods and registration of otherwise-useful firearms and other weapons) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which prohibits unlicensed interstate commerce in firearms, ammunition and other weapons), and we strike these as unconstitutional in their entirety.

The court further asserts that a (pre-existing naturally-occurring) "right of the people to keep and bear arms" may not be infringed by States in violation of the Second Amendment to that Constitution which is "the Law Of The Land".  As a consequence we strike existing and future schemes at the state-level to restrict, prohibit, tax, and register the acquisition and possession of firearms, ammunition and other weapons by 'the people' in their entirety.

Consequently, it should be clear that similar restrictions and prohibitions at the county, parish, and municipal levels as well as at all lower levels such as school districts and water districts (to name a few) are equally impermissable and we strike them in their entirety.

So ordered.

* * * * * * * * *

Now, that's what a proper Supreme Court decision from a moral SCOTUS looks like.  Note the clear absence of any trace of equivocation.