Customer Reviews for

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted May 5, 2008

    Another Activist Judge

    Justice Scalia feels the need to convince us that his views don¿t make him a closet member of the so called Michigan militia, by pointing to the writings of Englishwoman, Joyce Lee Malcolm. Of course, Joyce is a darling of the NRA and really an American, too. There seems to be some new confusion about Scottish Highlanders. Are we really going to have a US Supreme Court tell us that a hunter in the18th or 19th century might bear arms against a deer? Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. aymette v. the State 1840 Justice Scalia writes that dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the Second Amendment creates an individual right, yet his former colleague, Judge Bork, an opponent of strong gun control, has correctly said that the amendment was only a guarantee of the right of states to form a militia, not for individuals to bear arms. As the above decision also said, The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense is a great political right. It respects the citizens, on the one hand, and the rulers on the other. I respect our rulers and the court. 2 stars Disappointing

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 5, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted March 16, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1