Here is my constitutional analysis of the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, published this month, March 2011, in the Wyoming Law Review.^* Below is an excerpt (p. 238):

Although the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act conflicts with existing federal law, the Act is a constitutionally valid exercise of state power. The Act is a manifestation of the doctrines of interposition and nullification espoused by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the early history of the United States. The Act is also a clear exercise of state sovereignty that comports with the historical development of the Tenth Amendment.

. . . was nobody’s business but his own, literally and figuratively.

The so-called “public” and its grand protector, the SEC, have no morally sufficient argument to demand that a person, even a CEO, explain to them that he is receiving a transplant.  It is a complex, extremely frightening, private affair.

An argument for materiality undercuts our cultural notions of privacy.  Jobs did the right thing by stepping down as CEO for the time he was waiting for and receiving the transplant.  The market correctly priced the uncertainty of his return at that point, and the discussion should end there.

Investors who cry out “Materiality!  Materiality!” are just upset they didn’t have the chance to put or call the stock more lucratively.  Get over it.