This is a Rahimi news story, published by The Atlantic, that relates primarily to David Gergen news.
For more Rahimi news, you can click here:
more Rahimi newsFor more David Gergen news, you can click here:
more David Gergen newsFor more civil rights activism news, you can click here:
more civil rights activism newsFor more news from The Atlantic, you can click here:
more news from The AtlanticOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best politics news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about civil rights activism, you might also like this article about
previous Second Amendment cases. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest Second Amendment news, Supreme Court news, news about civil rights activism, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
other constitutional rightsThe Atlantic
•67% Informative
Supreme Court's gun-rights decision last week came to the right result, but for the wrong reasons, David Gergen says.
He says the court justified its result under an “originalist” approach to the Second Amendment .
Gergen: Originalism is the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted and can be changed only by amendment.
David Gergen : The Fifth Circuit struck down the federal law in Rahimi .
He says it's silly to limit constitutional law in the 21st century to the understandings of those in the late 18th century .
Gergen says the Supreme Court should look more generally at history in interpreting a constitutional provision, not limiting its meaning.
VR Score
78
Informative language
85
Neutral language
11
Article tone
formal
Language
English
Language complexity
67
Offensive language
likely offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
medium-lived
External references
no external sources
Source diversity
no sources
Affiliate links
no affiliate links