Guns, The Constitution, and the election
Posted by Moonage on 26 Jun 2008 | Tagged as: Uncategorized
Today the Supreme Court ruled that a government can not summarily ban personal firearms a person chooses to keep in their house. Now, to me, I could never understand how someone could interpret the Constitution in such a way that a citizen of the United States could now bear firearms in order to protect their home. The right to militia is absolute and one of the cornerstones of the Constitution and it’s ability to protect itself from the government. However, for thirty plus years, in of all places in the United States, the city that hosts the Constitution and its government, people were not allowed the most basic Constitutional right. Hardly anyone complained tho while they railed against imaginary losses of the civil rights from the day George Bush got elected. To me, in a perfect world, the truly stupid are the ones that don’t merit the right to be able to protect themselves from the government that they fear is infringing their right to make an unimpeded telephone call or chat nasty on the internet. However, being a true Republican, I recognize their right to be able to protect themselves regardless of how ignorant they may be of the true civil right they lost thirty years ago that I enjoy living where I do. I also recognize that the Constitution didn’t say that people in Kentucky can have the right to bear arms, but not the people in Washington, DC. The Consitution did not discriminate on location. It encompassed every citizen of the United States.
That part seemed obvious to me. However, the ruling today striking down the DC gun ban was a close one. 5-4 is not much of a margin. Four justices think the Second Amendment is not absolute. Here it is:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What part of that is not clear? Although some claim the capitolization of “People” intends to mean various things, the Constition starts off with:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is quite obvious who “People” are if taken in the context of who the Constitution defines as “People”. Quite simply, it is “We”. “We” have the right to militia, “We” have the right to bear arms. Nowhere does it give any suggestion that the government has the right to usurp the Second Amendment. Nowhere.
So, I read the opinions of the dissenters. They had all kinds of reasons to suggest the ban was a good thing. Basically none suggesting somewhere in the Constitution the ability to supress The Second Amendment existed.
Those four dissenters were Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and of course, Ginsberg.
Which leads me to November.
- Stevens has been on the Supreme Court since 1975. He has outlasted the President who appointed him by 32 years.
- Souter has been on the bench since 1990, outlasting his President by sixteen years.
- Ginsberg has been on the bench since 1993, outlasting her President by eight years.
- Breyer has been on the bench since 1994, outlasting his President by eight years as well.
Whoever becomes President in January 2009 will most likely be picking a new member their first term as Stevens will be 92 at the end of that term. Ginsberg will be pushing eighty. Four other will be in their 70’s. Now, the assumption is if Obama wins, the court will remain pretty much as it is. However, if any one of the “conservative” justices were to retire or die, then the whole balance has shifted again.
So, I think people need to think a little more about what they are voting for in November than just a popularity contest. It could very well change how laws that affect our entire society are decided for the next 30 years. And, if you think there’s really no connection, Obama has lived in the city with probably the second strictest gun laws, and has often voted on gun issues both in Illinois, and in DC. He has no problem with taking away your civil liberties.
And so far, I have not seen one single person whine about it.
Do you really want a Supreme Court that feels your Constitutional Rights, otherwise called “civil liberties”, are open to interpretation? I mean, really?
No Comments »
