This is the Kator Daily Podcast for Thursday, March 4, 2010. I'm Caleb Brown.

If you believe the 14th Amendment's privileges or immunities clause should have meaning in a world of constitutional liberty, ordered and otherwise,

the Supreme Court may have offered something of a disappointment this week.

McDonald's Gun case may have revealed, according to Institute for Justice, Senior Attorney Clark Neely, a more troubling side

of our nation's highest court.

What do we know now that we did not know the day before McDonald was argued.

I'm not sure we know anything now that we didn't already know.

We have reason to suspect the court isn't nearly as committed to originalism

as some of its members claim to be.

Is it possible that the fact that those on the court were

seemed to be picking apart cases that had yet to come before them under privileges or immunities can be

defended in the sense that they've only had the one case as a Supreme Court that

there's only been the one case that dealt head on with that issue?

I don't think so. I mean, frankly, it's a cheap shot to go after an advocate because they are there telling you that they you

you I think you should overturn 130 years of mistaken precedent and the idea

that that's not going to leave a bit of a mess to clean up or that it's the

advocates responsibility to persuade you that it'll be easy to clean up that mess is

both unfair and completely unrealistic.

So in some sense then the reason that the Second Amendment should have been incorporated under the

privileges or immunities clause may well have been that there really isn't much substance to that phrase at least in terms of court precedent?

In a sense, I mean just so you know I don't agree with the term incorporation.

I don't think the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe the right to keep

...