The immediate article is OT, but the underlying philosophy is not. The line of thinking is an essential read for those looking to further understand how the anti's will get around to attacking the Second Amendment.
The op ed author is Louis Seidman is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University's Law School, and a gentleman I have had the displeasure to converse with.
Seidman as a professor of con law is as bizarre as Dan Gross (Brady Campaign) becoming head of the NRA. He is brilliant, but his - and others like him - have such radical philosophies that are virtually irreconciliable with mainstream moderates, never mind the conservative/right (by the way, he's so left that he very prominently opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
His distain for the constitution is palpable. His brand of thinking is dangerous when applied against any hot-button topic protected under the Constitution (i.e. the Second Amendment). With his brand of constitutional irrelevancy, think about how easily fundamental rights could be swept away, either because they were controversial, or "bothered" a majority or outspoken majority. I never got the feeling he truly ever understood the Constitution's attempt to protect against both the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the majority.
His introduction to the op ed piece is completely disingenuous - that it had never occurred to him to abandon the constitution. This is flat out b.s. - this line of thinking has long been an underpinning of his writings and teaching.
He has argued that constitutional law cannot settle fundamental political issues - rather these are just "temporary" resolutions. In other words, a decision like Heller can be seen to be merely a temporary resolution of a controversy ...
