Is Nordyke's 2A/14A section holding or dictum?
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Prof. Volokh argues that Nordyke's finding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment is part of its holding, and not dictum.
BTW, postings have been slack because I'm still recovering from the operation. Had a complication, infection, that put me on my back for days, and now another -- a tube into me that came partially loose -- and this does tend to reduce blogging time!
Feel better soon! You gotta be healthy enough to come up to Chicago for our victory celebration!
Posted by: Melancton Smith at June 30, 2009 12:55 PM
Intersting series of arguments and discussion there, thanks. And get well, ok?
Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 30, 2009 02:28 PM
take care of yourself first, blogging can wait.
Posted by: deadcenter at June 30, 2009 07:19 PM
Like the others, I'm more than willing to take limited / no blogging now in exchange for many years of continued blogging after your recovery.
Posted by: KCSteve at July 1, 2009 09:31 AM
I wish I could understand what you're saying here. More lawyer double speak.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 2, 2009 05:51 AM
@Anonymous: That's unfortunate, because the dividing line between dicta and holding is an important one. The holding is legally binding caselaw, dictum is essentially supporting information that is not legally binding. Knowing which part of a court opinion is legally binding is naturally a very important distinction.
Posted by: Kenn at July 2, 2009 06:30 AM
"More lawyer double speak."
Yes, because law is the ONLY field of human endeavor which has developed its own terminology and usage, requiring some level of (gulp) familiarization...
Posted by: affe at July 2, 2009 08:30 AM
Miss your posts, but getting well is job one. Best wishes to you sir.
Posted by: Eric at July 2, 2009 09:57 PM