Who Fought and won Heller?

[HiBC]

Lets not take this to a broad political discussion.
IMO,it is a good time to know who the true friends of the Constitution are.

Which Texas Solicitor General assembled a coalition of 31 states supporting the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,and was instrumental in arguing and winning DC vs Heller?

If you cannot answer that question,it is a very good day to learn something new.
If you would like to look up the answer,one source is here:

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2013/03/ever-take-look-at-ted-cruzs-resume.html

 

[FrankenMauser]

Yea...

That is the first time I have ever seen anything about Cruz being associated with Heller.
Perhaps I missed it in the past, but I'm not biting.

 

[HiBC]

I'm not here to argue an opinion either way.

I agree,Frankenmauser,the matter IS obscure,for some reason. You have said "You are not going to bite"
That is up to you.
I can offer more support to consider.
Bringing it to light is,IMO,of value as people make important decisions.
Make your own choices.
Regardless of how anyone chooses to approach the election,IMO,we need to know and recognize those in office who over the years have consistently stood and fought for the Constitution and the RTKBA.

Cruz has fought this fight for years.

To offer a little more source in this matter of then Solicitor General of Texas Cruz's contribution,here are the transcripts of the Amicus Brief

http://docslide.us/documents/ted-cruz-amicus-brief-dc-v-heller.html

Admittedly I found this on a Cruz campaign page,but it does appear the NRA appreciates his contribution

https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/NRA_Resolution.pdf

Here is a little video where Heller is being discussed by Sen Cruz

https://youtu.be/UNUhWoIdFb4

Sen Cruz testifying in the Senate in 2013 about Assault weapon ban.

https://youtu.be/noy5f-y0uhY

Cruz and Feinstein 2013

https://youtu.be/Bzb9Hs2SmfQ

Sen Cruz vs BATF director Jones 2013

https://youtu.be/2tRidnXwLf8

 

[zukiphile]

To the degree this forum is about the specific civil right described in the 2d Am., it seems within bounds to inquire about candidate positions and credentials to present that position.

Cruz has made many of the same arguments publicly that are made on these pages about the limits the 2d Am. puts on the federal government. If one of the tasks of a president is to properly vet candidates to fill Sup Ct vacancies, confidence that the president is competent to oversee that vetting isn't a trivial consideration.

That isn't an admonition against voting any other way, but it is an assessment that pertains to 2d Am. defense.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The second this goes to discuss various candidates - it's closed.

If you want to talk about the factual contributions of a person to Heller - that's legit.

 

[zukiphile]

Glenn, none of the advocates involved in Heller contributed facts to the case, and Heller is already decided anyway.

Whether a person demonstrates an ability to understand and articulate the reasoning contained in Heller, and therefore after Heller, can indicate his fitness to advance that reasoning.

Currently, half of the Sup Ct has been nominated by presidents of either party, but Republican presidents have made some dubious choices. One would think that the fitness of an individual to assess prospective appointments would bear on preservation of the right.

To be clear though, any discussion of this that includes a prospective office holder would cause you to close this thread.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If we discuss past actions as 'facts', that's legit.

Start to advocate for Candidate Big or Small and we close.

 

[zukiphile]

So, leaving aside the identities of any specific candidates in the current presidential race, we can examine the recent history of presidential appointments.

Although one might consider RWR politically sophisticated and an ideologically strong candidate, his record on appointments has a mixed quality. Rehnquist, originally appointed by RMN and then elevated to chief justice by RWR, may be underappreciated for the degree to which he was swimming upstream against the rest of the court. He maintained a long and somewhat subtle project of breathing life back into the commerce clause. Kennedy himself is a mixed bag. Scalia's loss is keenly felt.

GHWB really spanned the spectrum. David Souter may not have been forthright with GHWB's people and he was an enormous disappointment. On the other hand, if you think a Supreme Court justice should look to the Constitution to resolve constitutional disputes, Thomas is the gold standard.

GWB has picked some brilliant and solid people. Many of us have been somewhat disappointed by Roberts on several occasions for his failure to enforce the clear meaning of text.

WJC appointed Ginsburg and Breyer. One could question the wisdom of making an appointment of someone Ginsburg's age, but both of his appointees appear to have maintained their original direction or orientation.

Of all those presidents, I believe the only ones that were attorneys were RMN and WJC.

If one believes that it is important to the preservation of the right described in the Second Amendment that the Supreme Court be populated with justices who do use the text of the Constitution as an important point of reference [as opposed to their own policy preferences or ideas about an evolving Constitution that sheds some of its content as time passes], then one might place a priority on the articulation of those principles in the future.

 

[lefteye]

If one believes that it is important to the preservation of the right described in the Second Amendment that the Supreme Court be populated with justices who do use the text of the Constitution as an important point of reference [as opposed to their own policy preferences or ideas about an evolving Constitution that sheds some of its content as time passes], then one might place a priority on the articulation of those principles in the future.

I do and I do!!!

 

[62coltnavy]

While I have no doubt that Cruz is an excellent lawyer and Constitutional law expert, it is ridiculous to suggest that Ted Cruz "fought and won" Heller. The accolades for that go to Alan Gura who wrote the respondent's brief and actually argued the case. Yes, Cruz was solicitor general of Texas and was counsel of record for amici 31 states, but there were numerous other attorneys from the Texas Office of the District Attorney and another from the solicitor general's office also listed on the brief. Cruz did not appear or argue at oral argument; instead, Texas' request to participate in oral argument was denied.

ALSO filing amicus briefs were the following:
Feb 4 2008 Brief amicus curiae of American Legislative Exchange Council filed. (Distributed)
Feb 4 2008 Brief of respondent Dick Anthony Heller filed. (Distributed)
Feb 4 2008 Brief amicus curiae of GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Congress of Racial Equality filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amici curiae of Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amici curiae of Alaska Outdoor Council, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amici curiae of Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amici curiae of Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Free Expression filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Libertarian National Committee, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amici curiae of National Rifle Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 7 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amici curiae of 55 Members of United States Senate, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Virginia1774.org filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Paragon Foundation, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Second Amendment Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amici curiae of Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, D.C., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amicus curiae of 126 Women State Legislators and Academics filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amici curiae of Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amici curiae of Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 8 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Maricopa County Attorney's Office, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of State Firearm Associations filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Bruce L. Benson, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 11 2008 Motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania, Joseph B. Scarnati, III filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Former Senior Officials of Department of Justice filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Academics for the Second Amendent filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Individual Freedom filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Retired Military Officers filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Heartland Institute filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Jeanette M. Moll, Ohio Concealed Carry Permitholders, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations etc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 11 2008 Brief amici curiae of International Scholars filed. (Distributed)

 

[zukiphile]

While I have no doubt that Cruz is an excellent lawyer and Constitutional law expert, it is ridiculous to suggest that Ted Cruz "fought and won" Heller.

While I disagree with none of that, we aren't supposed to discuss him.

It may be instructive to observe how individuals have argued 2d Am. issues in the past if we are interested in gaining insight into how they may handle those issues in future.

 

[Tom Servo]

While I disagree with none of that, we aren't supposed to discuss him.

We're welcome to discuss him, so long as it's in the context of his support for civil rights.

General election politics are what get us into murky waters.

 

[zukiphile]

The second this goes to discuss various candidates - it's closed.

If you want to talk about the factual contributions of a person to Heller - that's legit.

If we discuss past actions as 'facts', that's legit.

Start to advocate for Candidate Big or Small and we close.

We're welcome to discuss him, so long as it's in the context of his support for civil rights.

General election politics are what get us into murky waters.

Gentlemen, you are not articulating a standard. This comment is critical, but not personally so.

Announcing that people are free to discuss a candidate for the Republican nomination, but only his factual contributions to Heller, unless it is to advocate for him as a candidate, but it's OK if it is in the context of his support for civil rights, which could even be a problem if it pertains to general election politics is already quite convoluted, or "murky".

I would hope that no one is suspended if staff conclude that there has been a transgression.

Cruz is both a candidate for office in the future and an advocate with a past. An examination of his past advocacy, including his advocacy in the Senate, and his ability to serve as an advocate in the future will necessarily be susceptible to interpretation as discussion of the candidate.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IMHO, if you want to factually state that a person did XY or Z that is legit.

If you say because of these actions, he should be the candidate or President, that is not.

It is very simple. If folks want to advocate (even under the fiction of 'predicting'), then we will decide the appropriate action for that person.