Alan Gura's reply brief

Via David Hardy, I see that Alan Gura's reply brief is online.

Wow, that was fast (the reference to the Citizens United case):

Notwithstanding its unsuitability as a tool of
constitutional interpretation, negative inference is
useful in surveying the opposing briefs to evaluate
SlaughterHouse’s current vitality. Aside from pointing
out the decision is old, no attempt is made to defend
it. “When neither party defends the reasoning of a
precedent, the principle of adhering to that precedent
through stare decisis is diminished.” Citizens United
v. Federal Election Comm’n, 2010 U.S. Lexis 766 at
*90 (2010).

I also like the snark:

The concept of “ordered liberty” Respondents
invoke twenty-seven times never referred to the
government’s liberty to issue orders.